Chirac's Woldview?

Over at ChicagoBoyz, Lexington Green responds to my backhanded semi-defense of France. I think we're actually pretty close now, and I'm sure we agree on the posture the US should take towards France in the short- to medium-term (as is Jonathan Gewirtz on the same site). One point does deserve a bit more discussion, though. Lexington writes:

Well. First, I think it is easier to think that Chirac and Villepin are smart and can at least anticipate the consequences of their actions than to impute a "vast underestimation" to them. They are bright guys. They can see how the world works, and they can foresee the more obvious likely consequences of their actions. And they know perfectly well how much America does to create "world stability." Ending the "world stability" which has been imposed by the United States and which exists on American terms is what they want to happen.

Chirac is a smart guy, but so is Noam Chomsky. So, for that matter, is Paul Wolfowitz. We are all prisoners of our worldview and we all have blind spots. One huge blind spot in the European world view is over the contribution of the America (and especially the military) to postwar stability.

The European political classes are busily constructing the mythology of a "wise" Europe, a narrative in which European nations have moved on to the next stage of (trans)national evolution and has set aside the animosities of the past to create a harmonious brave new world. In this view, the cold war wasn't really Europe's affair -- Europe was the plucky mammal evolving in the shadows while prehistoric titans clashed overhead, oblivious.

To acknowledge America's (military) contribution to stability, even to themselves, would force them to confront the uncomfortable possibility that the European experiment is a hothouse flower which can only survive when sheltered from the harsh climate of the real world.

This accounts for the ferocious reaction from at least some of the European protestors, as the only role for America in this world view is lumbering prehistoric beast, no longer preoccupied and looking for a snack. Which is why they react (emotionally, at least) as if America might attack Holland next.

This view is also behind the disconnect on the topic of gratitude for WW II (see here).
For some other good takes on the "European" world view, see Vinod or bitter sanity.

Update: I also should point out that none of this is intended to excuse Chirac's behaviour and I'm not suggesting that we "agree to disagree." If anything, it's a call to action -- this world view is inherently hostile and dangerous to the United States (and, in my opinion, to the safety of the entire world) and must be checked. Understanding one of the root causes (sorry) of the struggle at the UN makes it possible to respond appropriately and effectively.

Freedom Fries

Glenn Reynolds and Cato the Youngest are sort of defending Freedom Fries, on the grounds that its very silliness makes it a harmless way to signal displeasure.

I actually think the symbolic renaming is less of a problem than the new names they chose. "Freedom" Fries and "Liberty" Toast sound so... earnest. That leaves the impression that the people doing the renaming are very earnest about something that is undeniably silly, which leads to the conclusion that they're foolish and petty. Would we be having this discussion if they'd chosen "Weasel Toast" and "Frog Fries"?

How's that for sitting on the fence?

Everything's fine when it comes to Franco-American relations. There's no strain whatsoever in the EU, NATO or the UN. Oh, yes and "so far as their strategy for disarming Iraq goes, the Americans have already reached their objective. They've won."

Jacques Chirac gives a television interview, apparently from some alternate universe.

Take a deep breath, everybody...
Bomb-throwing leftist subversive Mrs. T thinks some prominent bloggers are losing it, and tells them so with a firehose blast of cold water directed at the conspiracy theorists (and a lovely rant it is, indeed).

In this case at least, she's right, and PapaScott agrees. The profiteering described in the Die Zeit article that has everyone atwitter is unfortunate, but the players seem to be unconnected small fish and the German government is prosecuting them -- hardly evidence in support of collusion. This might (or might not) signal a lack of ethics and/or oversight, but there's absolutely no connection to Schr�der's Iraq policy and no smoking gun for the "something to hide" theory.

Everybody's a bit tense right now, and it's making people silly, so let's all try to take a deep breath and calm down a bit before posting. And I'll start by updating my post immediately below.

Lexington Green is fed up and lets France have it with both barrels, over at ChicagoBoyz.

Now I've been sounding the "The French Are Coming" alarm for months (see here, here, here, here or here or just poke around the archives - there are one or two on every page) and even I'm not willing to go quite this far:

Why would the French be willing to take steps which logically and practically could very well lead to the destruction of American cities with nuclear weapons? Why are they willing to push things in that direction? Why are they willing to take that risk? Because they see the world as a zero sum game in which what is bad for America is good for France.

Now the French foreign policy mandarins are deeply cynical and they are willing to let Americans die in large numbers for the glory of France, but not to the extent that Lexington fears. In particular, I don't think they consider a nuclear attack on the United States a serious possibility. If they did, they'd be more cooperative -- they'd still demand their pound of flesh and they'd still make extracting it as painful as possible, but in the end they'd come along.

I also don't think they see it as a purely zero-sum game in which America's loss is France's gain. They vastly underestimate the contribution that America makes to world stability and overestimate the stabilizing effect of their beloved multilateral institutions, which leads them to be reckless in their attempts to launch a new cold war.

France became pretty adept at gaming the system during the first cold war, but they've been losing influence since the iron curtain fell. Their foreign policy establishment just doesn't understand how to function in a world with just one "Hyperpower" so they yearn for the good old days and do everything they can to bring them back. And if they suceed in goading Russia and/or China into forming an opposing bloc, France will immediately (attempt to) resume its accustomed position as a semi-neutral, able to mediate between (and profit from) either of the great powers and their assorted pawns.

So... I'll grant you shortsighted, arrogant, aggressive, self-centered and venal (and maybe malicious) but I'd stop somewhere short of calling them calculating mass murderers.

Update: In response to some... unhappy... email, let me clarify a bit. I do think that French policy makers place greater weight on the good (or glory) of France as they see it than on the lives of American soldiers. That leads to decisions that place Americans at risk, but I'm aghast at the suggestion that they're actively trying to get Americans killed.

Okay, the "Freedom Fries" thing is stupid, but the "pro-ICC" activists in this article demonstrate that stupid and pointless "symbolic" acts aren't exclusive to Congress:

Pro-court activists raised the flags of the member states on a beach outside The Hague, each flag surrounded by a 3-foot-high sandbag bunker to symbolize a determination to ward off a U.S. landing.

The stuff about a US landing is a reference to the "Invasion of the Hague" act and has nothing to do with Iraq. It's too bad they didn't publicize the symbolic bunkers ahead of time -- they'd have passed fluids if a landing craft full of Marines actually turned up.

A new world order? (for real this time)

Jaed at Bitter Sanity writes up his thoughts about the differences between European and American perceptions of the UN and its proper role. Jaed thinks there's a fundamental disconnect and that all parties to the discussion are pretty much talking past each other. Jaed's theory does do a pretty good job of accounting for the rapidly deteriorating tone of the discussion.

Over at the Guardian, Peter Mandelson writes that the struggle in the UN is about the shape of an emergent new world order (where have we heard that before?). He sees a struggle between advocates of multipolarity and multilateralism, with American unilateralism waiting in the wings.

Meanwhile, Lee Harris writes that we're on the cusp of an even more fundamental change in world view. If Lee is correct, the very concepts underlying the Jaed's theory and the struggle between multipolarity and multilateralism are about to be swept away.

I don't have a grand unifying theory for all of this (yet), but these articles all point to something I've been feeling for a while now -- that we're poised on the brink of a momentous change and that nobody really has any idea what comes next. We can speculate and debate and imagine, but in the end it's all theory until it happens and I think we all sense that we really aren't equipped to understand what's about to happen and won't be until it's over. And then the outcome will seem obvious and foreordained.

In the meantime, we wait and we worry and we hope for the best.

Update: David Warren also writes about changes in the world order and the cold war that's brewing.

Update: David Adesnik disagrees (if the permalink goes to the wrong article, just go to OxBlog and look for the post that starts "Wishful Thinking").

Today's Op-Ed page in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a measured takedown of the "Human Shields" now fleeing Iraq that's worth a read. Excerpts:

Our service people have done a vastly superior job to these voluntary shields of thinking through their behavior toward civilians within a violent environment.


...


It is likely there will be no place more dangerous for the shields than among a newly liberated Iraqi populace, who will view them as pro-Saddam.

He manages to disassemble the human shields calmly and without apparent animosity or ridicule, which makes the article all the more effective.

A Seattle Weekly article quotes a collection of local notables on the looming war in Iraq. Andrew Sullivan cites a quote in which Tom Robbins wishes for an US defeat in Iraq. If you read to the end of the article, though, you'll find another quote that's a bit less hostile to the US:

Yahya Algarib is a family advocate at the Iraqi Community Center:

All the Iraqis�we�re so confused. We need Saddam Hussein removed, and, at the same time, we�re worried about our people. We saw a lot of people dying in the Gulf War�all civilians dying for no reason. Saddam Hussein is still in power. Now if they really want to have a second war with Iraq, where is it going to be? Just in the south of Iraq? Because last time, they could have moved to the capital, but then they stopped for political reasons. Now is it going to be same, or is it going to be real, and they will move into Baghdad?

Now who do you think has a better understanding of Iraq and Saddam Hussein?

Interesting...

This report (in German) of an anti-war demonstration in Leipzig explicitly mentions opposition to Saddam as well as Bush:

The demonstrators didn't protest against only the American war-plans, though. Signs also criticized Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In itself, not a big deal, but this is the first report I've seen of any antiwar demonstration anywhere that actually criticize Saddam as well. Is this an outlier or an leading indication of a (admittedly small) change in sentiment?

On another front, I also found Ari Fleischer's choice of words in his press conference today kind of interesting (at least in the part I caught). He didn't waste any kind words on the UN and indicated that if the UN doesn't act, then "other international institutions" will do so. Is he laying the groundwork for a post-UN world? He was certainly laying the groundwork for a giant, post-war I-told-you-so (which is the kind of thing I've been arguing the administration has to do).

Matthew Yglesias is worried about Bush's postwar plans for Iraq and the (possibly post-UN) international system. For the war itself, he says that he "favors the war that Bush says he's going to fight" but "fears that that won't be the war that's actually waged." On international issues, he fears that some within the administration want to impose a pax Americana and that the administration as a whole has shown no signs of knowing how to "fix" the international system.

I share his concerns, though to a much lesser degree, and I've actually been getting more optimistic on the issue of postwar Iraq lately. The international situation is a genuine mess right now, but I don't lay all (or even most) of the blame for that on Bush. I also see some signs of hope, despite lingering concerns that I've discussed before.

If you're absolutely convinced that Bush is driven by petty or venal motives or because he's a bloodthirsty warmonger with imperial designs, you might as well stop reading right now. As I see it, his behaviour as President is entirely consistent with a genuine dedication to protecting America and furthering American interests as he sees them coupled with an evolving notion of precisely what that means. Contrary to the common wisdom, I think he also understands the importance of a stable and workable international system. That said, he's not an idealist about it and he's not willing to sacrifice (his notion of) American security or economic interest on the altar of internationalism.

His real project is not the liberation of Iraq but the renovation of the Middle East as a whole, for the security of the United States. President Bush is truly committed to making postwar Iraq a success on the scale of postwar Europe, because anything less would place the larger project in jeopardy. Whether he'll actually pull it off or not is anyone's guess, but the commitment is genuine.

His speeches, statements and his actions have even been consistent with that notion. The reported deals with Turkey had me very seriously concerned for awhile, but a closer look gave me the impression of a three-way standoff -- neither the Turks nor the Kurds are willing to completely trust the United States to look out for their interests, and the US doesn't trust either side not to start a war. The end result would be a very delicate balance of just enough concessions to make Turkey feel secure without triggering a Kurdish rebellion, with coalition troops in the area to keep them apart. The situation will be tense as hell, which is always a risk, but I don't think the administration is planning to just hand effective control of the Kurdish areas to Turkey and I don't think either side actually wants a war.

It's fashionable in the Blogosphere right now to charge the Bush team with incomptence on the international front, but they were actually doing quite well on the until they were derailed by circumstances that nobody could predict. Bush surprised everyone when he went to the UN and stunned them when he got a suprisingly tough resolution approved unanimously by the UNSC (including Syria). It looked like things were on track for a UNSC approved war in Iraq this spring until the wheels came off when Schr�der decided to run against Bush rather than Stoiber. That gave France an opportunity to drive a wedge between the US and Germany and thereby enhance its stature in Europe and the World at the expense of the United States and (unwittingly) the UN.

France, Russia and Germany have made it clear that they view the UN as an instrument they can use to restrain the United States. The sad result of that is to convince Bush that the UN in its current form is essentially an anti-American institution. That makes it a threat, which means that he won't rest until it is restructured or replaced. Scroll down or click here on the impending threat to the UN.

The design of whatever rises from the ashes of the UN will be directed by people who take a pragmatic rather than an idealistic view of the whole enterprise. They will recognize the value of the institution but will be skeptical of investing it with too much power, which places them in stark contrast to the earnest idealists who constructed the bizarre world of the UN or the suffocating mound of eurocracy in Brussels. The result should be an institution with clearly defined responsibilities which is controlled by innate checks and balances. In short, we just might get a system that will work this time.

Update: Lexington Green is also feeling more optimistic about the Bush administration's commitment to truly getting Iraq back on its feet.

Update: But nobody says it'll be easy. Salam Pax describes the reaction in Iraq to news that Barbara Bodine would administer Baghdad ("you know it is their intention to destroy the pride of the muslim man"). Salam's points (many of them, read the whole thing) are well taken -- commitment is necessary but not sufficient. However happy the Iraqi people might be to be out from under Saddam, trust is another matter and the administration will need a very deft touch.

Naked protestors are one thing but now they're mentally undressing other people. From an MSNBC article about weekend protests:

�Imagine President Bush nude addressing the state of the union. Imagine Saddam Hussein nude.�

I really didn't need either of those images, thank you very much.

On the other hand, the description of that particular rally makes it sound pretty, um, interesting:

�Women are most affected by war,� [Danny] Glover said, also acknowledging International Women�s Day. �It is the real caregivers of this mother Earth who are most devastated.�


Joining them on federal grounds were four women followers of the Raelian sect who stripped down to their thong underwear as a sign of opposition to war. The sect believes life on Earth was created by space aliens and claims to have produced human clones.


�Whenever everybody undresses, the ego goes away and then we can make decisions,� said Nadine Gary.

Perhaps the most thorough and insightful treatment of the complex geopolitical difficulties posed by the situation in Iraq that I've ever seen. Nothing but top-tier intellectuals in that group.

I'd say more, but Russel Working has already written the final word on the topic of these sorts of "protests."

The UN Follies

Dean Esmay does a very nice job of putting the UN follies in perspective. His characterization of President Bush is spot on, too.

The End of the UN is coming. And it'll be much sooner and much more brutal than most people expect.

Even those who've been predicting the demise of the UN seem to expect that it will fade into irrelevance. The weasel-bloc nations are betting that Bush willl just ignore the UN for the remainder of his current term, and that his replacement (in two years) will be eager to get back in the good graces of the UN. Even if Bush "temporarily" withdraws, they'll spin it as a fit of pique, batten down the hatches, and wait for his replacement. Two years of irrelevance is a small price to pay for the glory they've received, and the light at the end of a tunnel is an American President who will suck up to Europe like no one ever has.

They've seriously misread the situation.

Bush will not simply ignore the UN for the remainder of his term. He's a bit focused on Iraq at the moment, but once he turns his attention to the UN, he will systematically discredit and dismantle it to the best of his ability. And he'll be turning his attention to the UN very soon.

France and her followers have worked very hard to wring the maximum benefit out of the standoff at the UN. In the process, they've placed the credibility of the UN in direct opposition to that of the US, which means that the only way for President Bush to regain credibility is to trash the UN.

But that's actually secondary. Their real mistake was to demonstrate in no uncertain terms that the UN in its current form is a clear and present threat to the security of the United States as Bush sees it, and President Bush has made it very clear that he sees it as his duty to eliminate threats to the United States. Dominique de Villepin might as well have painted a giant bullseye on the side of the UN building.

The attack on the UN will begin at about the same time as the attack on Iraq, on the theory that its better to take the worst of the PR damage all at once. In the first salvo, Bush will publicly flay the UN and directly take on the weasels in the statesmanlike speech his supporters have been waiting for (which might be the speech that announces the start of hostilities in Iraq). He may well also "temporarily" withdraw from the UN but I don't think we'll see a joint walkout just yet, and Bush will probably offer to work with other nations to "reform the UN into an effective body." This last bit is primarily for Tony Blair's domestic benefit, and the UK will take the lead on proposing ways to reform the UN. None of them will work, but it's a PR exercise so that's beside the point.

In the medium to long term, the best and most effective weapon Bush will have against the UN any time soon is Iraq itself. Handled properly, his greatest liability can become his strongest asset. The war will be waged with exquisite concern for civilian casualties and the postwar peace should be managed cleanly, transparently and with extraordinary generosity toward the people of Iraq. And look for a PR campaign emanating from Iraq itself, aimed directly at those who supported Saddam - every hidden weapon and every atrocity that is uncovered in Iraq will be laid directly on France's doorstep.

If Iraq plays out as expected and world opinion calms down enough that Blair (and Bush) are feeling secure again, they'll decide that the UN is beyond hope and propose a complete replacement -- one built from the ground up to promote freedom in a unipolar world (Evan Coyne Mahoney's Alliance of Liberty is a pretty good template). The new entity might even arise from the reconstruction of Iraq itself, which will be run by (mostly) non-UN multinational entities and via non-UN multilateral agreements (ad-hoc coalitions of the willing, able and trustworthy).

Bush might surprise me and go straight to a replacement for the UN, but it seems like that would be too much for Tony Blair to survive right now and Bush won't sacrifice him. Bush values loyalty and knows that it goes both ways, and he understands that Tony Blair is essential for the next stages in Bush's project to make the world a safer place.

Update: I really have to remember to read USS Clueless before I sit down to write. Steven Den Beste is on the same wavelength.

Update: Andrew at Pathetic Earthlings wrote about possible non-UN multilateral administration of Iraq several weeks ago. I'll admit that the notion of France lobbying Poland has a certain appeal, but it's unlikely -- effectiveness is primary, and whatever structures emerge can't even appear to have been designed to retaliate against France. The new Iraqi government, on the other hand, can do whatever it wants.

I think I've figured out why Saddam confidently predicts victory, should America attack. He's seen this video.

Peace in Our Time

I was listening to the UN presentations on the radio this morning, and the Russian foreign minister just said that the security council was "laying the foundation for peace in our time."

Yeah, that worked so well the first time. It's bad enough for peace protestors to be historically illiterate, but the Russian foreign minister?

The more the merrier?

President Bush made it clear this evening that he will push ahead with a new UN resolution, regardless of whether he thinks it will be approved. He also made it clear that plans for Iraq will be largely affected by the outcome -- he has already made the determination that Saddam is not complying and the second resolution is reallly a challenge to the UN to prove that its words actually mean anything.

This is a pretty good approach. Anyone who's paying attention understands the real contents of resolution 1441 and the meaning of a no vote or a veto. Unfortunately, most people aren't paying very close attention and most media coverage leaves the impression that the full text of resolution 1441 is "Bomb Iraq." The end result is that forcing a vote will deliver the message that the President intends, but only to people who already understand it.

I think I have a better idea. Submit two resolutions for consideration.

The first resolution would affirm that Iraq is in full compliance with resolution 1441 -- that the WMD declaration was accurate and that Iraq has complied with and cooperated fully in implementing the requirements of that resolution.

After that resolution is defeated, the US et all would submit proposed resolution 1442, with no changes.

Even if both resolutions fail, forcing a vote on two resolutions would achieve several things:

It forces the burden of explanation onto France et al. If they vote no on both resolutions, they'll have to explain the difference between "not yes" and "no."

It underlines the fact that the proposed 1442 is not a resolution to "authorize war" but a judgement on Saddam's compliance with previous resolutions that already authorize war.

The fact that it is so completely unexpected would prompt lots of media discussion about the real contents of the proposed resolutions and smash the notion that the proposed resolution 1442 "authorizes war."

As with many ideas, I can't tell at first if it's clever or stupid.

Update: As it turns out, the proposed amendment goes in sort of this direction by attempting to force a second vote which positively affirms that Iraq has fully and completely. The fact that it has a trigger date makes it a non-starter, though. If they want to force the council to affirm (or deny) that Iraq is in full compliance, they should stop playing games and just do so.

Next question?

Citing news reports that the UN is drawing up plans for the postwar administration of Iraq, Mark at Web.Kafe asks the question "UN Control of Iraq - Good or Bad?"

Let me ponder this for a second. Okay, I'm done. The answer is:

BAD!

It's true that the world will be watching for signs that America is "stealing Iraqi oil" or building an empire and is predisposed to believe the worst. Handing control to the UN has a superficial appeal as a simple and ostentatious way for the administration to keep its hands clean. In the medium- to long-term, though, it would be a disaster.

Just consider the sterling job that the UNHCR has done for the Palestinians and the blue helmet's heroic defense of Srebenica. The UN will set up a permanent aid bureaucracy while France and Russia graciously offer to patrol Iraq's oilfields. Outside of Baghdad and the oilfields, tentative peacekeepers and ethnic tensions will lead everyone to arm themselves to the teeth.

In the best case, one of the thugs hits on the right combination of toadying and blackmail, and the UN hands over control of everything but the oilfields before internal strife gets out of hand. The new strongman keeps things calm in the short term but setting up another thugocracy feeds the cynicism and fear of neocolonialism that is a real root cause of Arab discontent.

In the worst case, the UN "powers" can't find one thug who is willing to suck up to all of the players simultaneously, so they back different factions. Turkey and Iran get involved "to ensure security" and pretty soon we're looking at Afghanistan all over again but with guns and money galore.

The postwar administration of Iraq absolutely must be transparent, squeaky clean and temporary. Other nations should participate in specific aspects of the reconstruction (individually or under UN auspices), but the UN must not get overall administrative control.

So much for my prediction that the worst of the diplomatic head-butting was over. At the time it seemed that Tony Blair and "new" Europe had held steady while Chirac had flinched. Alas, the dynamic trio are at it again, with Russia and France stopping just short of promising a veto.

Steven Den Beste thinks we're seeing another game of diplomatic chicken and that the goal is to prevent the resolution from ever coming to a vote. I don't think they really care whether it comes to a vote or not -- the name of the game now is to hurt the US and Britain as much as possible. Chirac's ultimate dream of toppling Blair might even be within reach, and Chirac probably thinks that would be enough to stop the war. As an added bonus, Blair's fall would pressure those upstarts who had the temerity to challenge Franco-German stewardship of Europe.

Here are the various scenarios, as I see them and in probability order (most likely first):

The coalition attacks Iraq without UN approval
This would enrage pretty much everyone except the "American Street" (with a solid assist from France et al, no doubt). Blair's position is secure during the fighting, but he'd be at risk again as soon as the situation stabilizes. It doesn't matter much whether they drop the new resolution or if they try and fail. The least damaging (but still bad) scenario is if France is forced to veto. This looks a lot like a new cold war, but there's enough support left for the US that Europe doesn't harden into a solid anti-American bloc.

UN haggling takes long enough that Blair falls -- The US attacks anyway
The British pull out of the coalition but Bush presses on regardless. The consequences for US-European relations are disastrous. A domino effect clears out most of the leaders who stood up to Chirac, and the growing gulf between the US and Europe becomes a chasm. From this point on, it would truly be the US against (most of) the world in a new cold war.

The coalition attacks Iraq with grudging UN approval
This is the best outcome Bush and Blair can hope for. The politicking is open enough that many voters would still be disgruntled, but they wouldn't be outraged. Blair probably survives in this case, and the tensions between the US and Europe ebb (very) slowly.

UN haggling takes long enough that Blair falls -- The US backs off
Bush and the US become a laughingstock. The security council makes noises about Iraq until the public stops paying attention, declares victory, and France and Russia get to form their "counterweight" to the now severely weakened hyperpower. Whoever wins the 2004 presidential election (not Bush) busily sets about trying to "fix things" with Europe by immediately surrendering American sovereignty, security and economic interests to any organization or agreement that claims to be multilateral.

So if you're France, what's not to like?

Update: Andrew at Pathetic Earthlings comments. If scenario 4 plays out, I'll be in the rubber room next door.

Update: Looks like option 1, folks. The President made it clear that he's going to force a vote at the UNSC and then go ahead, win or lose.

If Angela Merkel's trip to the US was actually a cynical ploy for domestic political advantage, it didn't work. I'll grant that Schr�der took a few shots at Karneval, too, but this parade float featuring Merkel is mighty harsh. And eye-catching.

I still give her the benefit of the doubt and think that it was an honest (and risky) attempt to mend fences a bit.

From a bit further north, Pravda weighs in:

Iraq has a right to use the same instruments of war that Israel and the USA do. It is enough to compare words of Saddam Hussein said at the above-mentioned meeting with Russian parliamentarians and texts of Bush� hysterics in order to make sure that the Iraqi leader deserves much more trust than America�s president. The advantage of the latter is based upon military force, not intellect. In this case it is more immoral to indulge in �the right of the strong� than in the times when Japan attacked China and when Germany occupied Czechoslovakia.

Got that? Saddam deserves trust and Bush is worse than Hitler.

This Just In......from the KCNA (North Korean) newswire:

Delegates of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party (Marxist), the Workers' Party of Bulgaria (communist), the Bulgarian Communist Party (bolshevik), the Bulgarian Communists Union, the Bulgarian Movement for Justice and Humanism, the Romanian Working Party and the Socialist Party of Romania released a joint statement on February 13, denouncing the U.S. moves to stifle the DPRK.

Is it just me or does it sound like this announcement came from eight guys in black sitting in a Sofia cafe?

Backpedaling, off message or something else?
According to this report in the German Press, Colin Powell gave a radio interview in France (to air on Saturday) in which he disavowed most of the speech that President Bush gave earlier this week and stated that the administration's goal is to disarm Saddam.

This doesn't make sense to me, at first blush. I can't believe that Powell is that much of a loose cannon, but I can't see how it fits any sort of coordinated strategy. It's late where I am (Seattle), so I'll sleep on it and maybe have a theory in the morning. I suppose it's possible that the report is false -- I haven't found it anywhere else yet (in either the German- or English-language press).

Update: The interview is getting pretty much the same response from Der Spiegel and FAZ

Update: Thanks to blogger Amiland, who sent along a link to the audio of the interview (and the FAZ article cited above). Listen for yourself, but it seems to me like ordinary diplomatic positioning on Powell's part that's being overinterpreted by the German press.

The wages of sin, redux.

A few days ago, Merde in France made suggested punishing France with more than a boycott, with policies that encourage corporations to move from France to "new" Europe.

Today, Charles Krauthammer outlines a much more comprehensive approach. He suggests:

Adding Japan and India as new permanent members of the security council.

No role for France in Iraq - no peacekeeping, no oil contracts, and France should be last on the list for debt repayment.

Begin laying the ground for a new alliance to replace obsolete cold war alliances

I agree and have said so before, but it has to be done "right." First off, heavy handed or inappropriate retaliation will just give Chirac yet another excuse to complain about the big bad hyperpower. Secondly, it has to be part of a comprehensive policy designed to reward and strengthen the bonds between like-minded allies.

Krauthammer's suggestions mostly fit the bill. I'd add:

Expand existing free trade zones or create new zones to encompass allies (e.g. Turkey, New Europe, selected parts of Old Europe).

Locking France out of Iraq is appropriate but has to be handled carefully:

Reconstruction contracts and peacekeeping duties are properly the responsibility of the provisional authorities (presumably a military administration at first) who would be fully within their rights to lock France out.

The administration would be wise to get administration of the oil fields under some form of nominally independent (civilian Iraqi or multi-nation) control as soon as possible; direct American control of Iraqi oil for any length of time will just feed the blood for oil crowd. The degree of French involvement during reconstruction is up to those authorities to decide. In the long term, it will be up to the government of Iraq to decide who gets contracts.

Decisions about which debts take priority will also be the responsibility of the US government. The US can't just move France to the bottom of the list on their own.

Now, I wouldn't expect the new government of Iraq to be terribly well disposed towards France, but the US can't dictate or even openly encourage that they punish France. They have to decide that on their own.

The US can craft policies that aren't good for France, but they can't be too direct or obvious and they'll have to be presented carefully. For example:

Instead of just paying for the reconstruction of Iraq, the US could structure it as debt and then campaign for all industrial nations to forgive debt on humanitarian grounds. Net cost to the US: Nothing they didn't expect to pay. Net cost to France and Russia: billions

Encouraging companies to move out of France is a possibility, but it has to be presented as "encouraging investment in developing Europe" rather than "discouraging investment in France."

The hard part starts after the shooting stops.

Steven Den Beste has a nice analysis and overview of the big picture in Iraq. He also enumerates and refutes some of the conspiracy theories I discuss in this post.

The importance of world public opinion is on the menu at Matthew Yglesias.

Winning back the respect and support of the world is an important goal, but now is not the time -- there just isn't enough common ground for a discussion right now. Both sides argue from deeply held beliefs and richly imagined scenarios:

The anti-war imagination conjures up a brutal war with carpet bombing of cities and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, followed by military occupation of Iraqi oil fields, haphazard and minimal reconstruction elsewhere and an eventual transition to a brutal new thug on the American payroll. The pro-liberation imagination yields a short, surgical war with minimal harm to civilians, followed by a reconstruction effort along the lines of the Marshall plan and an eventual transition to a modern, multi-ethnic democracy. Each side thinks the other is being ridiculous, and cynicism leads to a search for ulterior motives.

The only antidote to this mutual cynicism is counterexample. By making the moral case for regime change and outlining a positive vision for the reconstruction of Iraq, President Bush has laid a solid foundation. If the administration follows through on those words, a postwar campaign to win back world (or at least western) opinion should bear fruit. If it proves to have been posturing and empty rhetoric, cynicism will be validated and the damage will multiply.

So what does this all mean? For the administration it means a serious commitment to a scrupulously fair and ethical reconstruction program, and those who support regime change in Iraq will have to hold the administration's feet to the fire to make sure that happens. It also means that we all should keep the conversation as civil as possible -- when the shooting stops and it's time to build the consensus notion of what just happened, the last thing anyone wants is to have already alienated people who might otherwise have been convinced.

President Bush said all the right things as he outlined his vision for the reconstruction of Iraq. Voters are cynical enough these days that words alone won't win many people over, but by presenting a strong moral vision for postwar Iraq, he laid the foundation for a campaign to win back public support after the war.

If his words represent a genuine commitment to helping Iraq rebuild as a modern, multiethnic democracy, then this could mark a turning point for public attitudes. Decades of cold war Realpolitik have eroded postwar goodwill and left the majority deeply cynical -- cynical to the point that the idea that any nation can behave morally and responsibility gets less consideration than some truly absurd conspiracy theories.

If words are matched by action and the Bush administration comes through with a comprehensive, popular and fair plan for postwar reconstruction and executes that plan effectively and ethically, that might start to change. One good turn won't erase decades of distrust or usher in a new era of peace, love and understanding, but it could win back some self-respect for the west and help positive idealism stage a comeback.

If this is all spin, on the other hand -- if Bush is merely constructing a cheerful facade for lackluster, unfair or unethical postwar plans, he'll strike a mortal blow to any remaining credibility, respect or affection for America throughout the west. Cynicism, already rampant, will triumph and the nations of the world will line up to either support or oppose the US in earnest, driven by cool calculations of national self-interest. In short, we'll enter a new Cold War and an era of realpolitik.

President Bush has set forth a clear, strong and moral case; now he has to live up to his words. We can all only hope that he understands what's at stake.

Methinks he doth protest too much:The Wall Street Journal ran an article (subscription required) critical of the Belgian military last week. It pointed out that the high cost of labor reduces capital expenditures, with the result that the Belgian military (and European militaries in general) are underequipped. Although critical, the article is hardly inflammatory.

To normal humans, that is. The Belgian minister of defense responded with a sputtering tirade (subscription required) that has to be read to be believed. He starts out by (somewhat incoherently) accusing the Journal of being unprofessional, vulgar, unfair and of prostituting itself. And of, er, "deriding the concept of objectivity." He then proceeds to demonstrate what apparently passes for professionalism, civil discourse and objectivity in the Belgian government:

Yes, the primary mission of our armed forces is to maintain the peace and to help the civilian population (Belgian or foreign), without being belligerent or being convinced of having been elected by a higher authority to keep watch over the world order.

...

Yes, we spend a reasonable budget that corresponds to our bilateral and international obligations, but we refuse to squander our public funds for the sole purpose of national glory, since we prefer to spend them on social affairs, health care and pensions for our fellow citizens. In none of these fields do we have lessons to receive from anyone else, to whatever extent this may annoy them.
...

For the quality of information of your fellow citizens, for the honor of American journalism, for the respect toward the men and women of my department, I sincerely hope you will cease to believe yourselves the keeper of universal wisdom.
...

Repeating my sympathy for the entire American people, which, I am convinced, is able to distinguish between truth and lies, I hereby transmit you a series of objective facts you have denied to take into account with such blindness. Or could it be stupidity, for which I'll grant you credit.

[ skipping ahead to "objective fact" #8: ]

8. Americans may spend 22% on equipment, but they have a global strategy and must support a large nuclear strategic posture (that is oversized for the defense of their territory but undersized to control the entire planet) which has repercussions on working and investment expenses and consequently reduces proportionally the part of personnel expenses.

Sneering anti-Americanism is conduct unbecoming of a high official of a supposed ally, and it's oddly out of place in a response to a newspaper article.

I know and have worked with (ex-) Belgian military people. They were decent and honorable to a fault and I'm certain they'd be mortified at this undignified outburst ostensibly in their name. If he has a shred of dignity, decency, or respect for his government or military, Mr. Flahaut should resign.

It's not about Iraq anymore at the UN. Oh, sure, all of the discussion is about Iraq, but the die is already cast - the "Coalition of the Willing" will attack Saddam with or without UN support. All of the current activity is either for the domestic benefit of one of the participants, or jockeying for position in the post-war diplomatic and political landscape.

In the end, all politics are local. Tony Blair and leaders of other Coalition nations must turn public opinion in their favor before they face next have to face elections, which means that they have to consider not just the results but how they're perceived by voters. That makes it absolutely necessary for them to exhaust every opportunity at the UN and to make it absolutely unmistakably clear that the UNSC is at fault. The new resolution does exactly that.

The actual content of the resolution is lost in the press reports (which incorrectly describe it as a resolution to authorize war on Iraq) right now, but it lays the groundwork for a coordinated campaign to reclaim the moral high ground after the war, when the voters will hopefully be a bit more receptive. An active PR campaign will be absolutely necessary because those who opposed the war will pounce on every opportunity to declare it a failure. This also means that the effort to reconstruct Iraq must committed, sincere and scrupulously ethical (no sweetheart deals for old oil buddies) or cynical voters will buy into every oddball conspiracy theory.

I originally had a lot more to say on this topic, but work intruded long enough that pretty much everybody else beat me to it.

See the Opinion Journal, Porphyrogenitus or Arkat Kingtroll for more on the resolution itself and the situation at the UN. Steven Den Beste's latest has a ton of links and an analysis that contradicts his gloomy tone.

Andrew Sullivan emphasizes the importance of winning hearts and minds after the war and the importance of commitment to and good conduct in the reconstruction of Iraq.

Perhaps I'm not as cynical as should be, but I have no real problem with Angela Merkel's WaPo op-ed piece or her upcoming visit to Washington.

Fellow blogger Amiland sees it as a cynical ploy for domestic consumption. I can sympathize with that position to some extent, but it seems to be a curious choice for a self-serving political move since, as the Spiegel Online hit piece ("Angela Merkel: Kow-tow before the US administration") and (admittedly predictable) SPD attacks demonstrate, it is hardly without risk.

In fact, it looks to me like a relatively courageous attempt at damage control. Merkel might just have sacrificed herself to clean up some of Schr�der's mess.

The reality is that somebody has to tend to the German-American relationship or the ever widening rift will become permanent. Somehow, I don't see Schr�der leaping into action and newspaper ads by trade groups just aren't enough. That leaves Angela Merkel.

Nor do I think she's out of line to do it (at least not much). The unfortunate fact is that German domestic politics are intertwined with German-American relations in a very visible way right now. It's hardly fair to blame the Union for the current state of affairs -- the true "crass break in the local political culture" happened on the campaign trail last year.

We'll see pretty soon what the domestic political fallout of Merkel's article and visit turns out to be, but I'm guessing that it won't be a huge boost for her domestically and that it could even be a liability (especially in the short term). If she survives and her agenda shapes up as rumored, the trip won't be wasted.

Saddam suddenly less cooperative. I'm sure that this will come as a shock to the people who marched last weekend.

The Wages of Sin and Stupidity. Dilacerator gets it right, as usual, when he attributes Germany's role in the ongoing Iraq melodrama to stupidity rather than malice. Schr�der is a politician rather than a statesman, and it shows.

Faced with trouble, Schr�der chooses the easiest and safest course out of whatever predicament he's in, with little apparent regard for the big picture or the long-term consequences of his actions. That's also true for his domestic politics, and is one of the reasons he's been lurching from crisis to crisis for years.
Sadly, much of the damage to German-American relations won't be easy to repair, and Germany will likely pay the economic price for years to come.

And it's not all petty payback, despite reports to the contrary. American military planners have been forced to face the fact that a populist politician could deny them the use of troops and materials based in Germany, and no sane planner would put very many eggs in such a fragile basket. Some further base closures were inevitable, but Schr�der's recklessness will accelerate and deepen the cuts.

I share Dilacerator's opinion that France is the villain in this little set piece and that Germany has played the hapless assistant -- Schr�der cast as Igor to Chirac's Frankenstein -- but the consequences for France aren't so obvious or immediately dire. Direct action (e.g. tariffs) would come across as heavyhanded and/or petty and would almost certainly backfire.

That argues for isolating France through indirect means -- by strengthening US ties to the rest of Europe (both old and new), Turkey and probably to the German opposition. The message should be "partnership, not payoffs" and the policy should be to build or expand on concrete and enduring ties (e.g. trade and mutual defense pacts) rather than handing out one time payoffs such as aid or loan guarantees. Reliable partners are always preferable to well-paid lackeys, especially in difficult times. Witness Turkey, which is currently demanding a raise.

The administration's focus is clearly (and properly) on the impending war and its immediate aftermath right now, but I sincerely hope that they're also thinking about what comes next. A new Cold War is looming but can still be avoided. The slow and careful work of tending friendships and building alliances isn't as exciting as smiting the evildoer, but it is every bit as important. Let's all hope the administration understands that.

Cold War II Redux.
It looks like new Europe sees another cold war brewing, too.

Dilacerator cites a Czech newspaper editorial which sees the danger of a new cold war, with France and Germany leading the ideological successor of the Warsaw Pact. InstaPundit then turned up a Romanian editorial that very bluntly says pretty much the same thing.

The idea that a new Cold War is brewing has been rattling around the blogosphere for some time, see this post and this one for some of my earlier thoughts on the topic and links to other bloggers who were thinking along the same lines.

Ironically, I'm now less worried about a new Cold War than I was in January or even last week. We're not out of the woods yet, but the Monday's EU meeting was a watershed moment -- most of the rest of Europe made an emphatic choice not to fall into line behind France. Chirac's diatribe served only to underline the wisdom of that decision.

The current situation in Europe is favorable but it isn't stable for the long term -- popular pressure is strong and it will continue to build as long as the cloud of impending war hangs over the continent. President Bush and the leaders of Europe still have time to act deliberately, but they can't let it drag on forever.

If the war against Saddam gets underway fairly soon and is successful, the worst danger is probably past. The US and her allies will have to stay vigilant, but they should be able to prevail. That assumes a US policy of active and positive engagement with allies -- trade pacts, defensive alliances, etc. to hem in and weaken those who favor opposition for its own sake. If the war against Saddam goes badly (gets bogged down or results in heavy civilian casualties) or if the US doesn't follow through with support for her allies, all bets are off.

Did anyone notice that this New York Times article somehow manages to avoid mentioning Chirac's outburst at the EU meeting? I haven't seen the print edition, so maybe it was in another article.

The Seattle PI ran the Times article and not much else. The Seattle Times ran an article (not online but credited to Reuters and the Christian Science Monitor) which ignored Chirac's tantrum and left the impression that the EU joint statement was a blow to Bush and his allies.

Just to add a bit of irony, the Seattle Times also ran an opinion piece (also not online) which talked about the Blogosphere's ability to cover stories that are ignored by the print media.

If I can find a copy (I was reading someone else's paper) I'll post some excerpts from all of the above.

I'm with Glenn on this one. Inviting "new" Europe, Turkey and other allies into a free trade alliance with the US would be a good strategic move, geopolitically speaking. And it's good policy, to boot.

Jacques Chirac was on a roll last weekend. Flush from a tour de force at the UN Security council and basking in the glow of a weekend just packed with anti-American protests, he dispensed nuggets of wisdom upon the hapless President Bush and even magnanimously him a slightly face-saving way to climb down. Monday's emergency meeting of the EU would be his victory lap, where the wayward children of Europe fell into line behind the wise and benevolent leadership of France. Except maybe that Blair kid - he's trouble.

Oops.

Chirac's outrageous temper tantrum is not the act of a sophisticated and wise world leader at the pinnacle of his powers. This is the act of a man who is way off-balance and incredibly angry. Clearly, Chirac was taken completely by surprise by the resistance he faced at the meeting. Even Kofi Annan warned Chirac that the charade couldn't go on much longer.

So what happened? I keep coming back to the theory that Chirac was blinded by his world view. He believed that he had won the UN game and honestly couldn't imagine that Bush would act without UN approval. He was expecting to coast to the finish line, as Bush backed away from war, the rest of the world sang the praises of France and the European fence sitters disappeared quietly into the night. If he was in a good mood, he might even let those upstart peasants in the East off the hook -- at least for long enough to drag them out of the American orbit.

The other European leaders understand just what's at stake in the game that Chirac is playing, and they aren't willing to sacrifice the UN, NATO and the whole transatlantic partnership. They made it clear that the Gang of 8 letter wasn't a one time event and that they wouldn't just hand over the keys to Europe without a struggle. Even Schr�der went along in the end, which shows that the message has finally gotten through that he has to worry about more than staying in office.

Speaking of Schr�der: The German press reports I've seen have him loudly patting himself on the back for removing the words "time is running out" from the final joint declaration. That suggests that he'll now go along quietly with the rest, as long as he gets to crow about what a committed pacifist he is.

I think we're through the worst of the diplomatic strife now. Unless Chirac has another trick up his sleeve, is truly clueless or is willing to bet everything (and I mean everything) on going another round against the rest of Europe and the US, the rhetoric should subside and the diplomats will get together to draft a new resolution that gives everyone enough cover to claim they stood by their principles. Germany will be more-or-less forgiven, but Schr�der is probably doomed. NATO will survive, but with an updated charter and possibly without France. The new Iraqi government will throw out the TotalFinaElf deal, but I'm not sure what else will happen to France.

So that's what I see in my crystal ball. Comments?

Steven den Beste is puzzled by a TIME magazine interview with Chirac, in which he praises the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf. Some excerpts:

And if we do that, there can be no doubt that it will be due in large part to the presence of American forces on the spot. If there hadn't been U.S. soldiers present, Saddam might not have agreed to play the game.
...

If Iraq is stripped of its weapons of mass destruction and that's been verified by the inspectors, then Mr. Bush can say two things: first, "Thanks to my intervention, Iraq has been disarmed," and second, "I achieved all that without spilling any blood." In the life of a statesman, that counts�no blood spilled.

I was puzzled too, at first, but that puzzlement has been percolating long enough that a hypothesis is emerging:
Chirac thinks that he has won the struggle in the Security Council and that the demonstrations this weekend clinched the deal. By praising Bush in an interview, Chirac thinks he's offering the President an honorable way to climb down.

Seen in this light, France's actions over the past few weeks are a bit less incomprehensible. Chirac wasn't worried about damaging the UN because he was confident that he could manage the situation to play out pretty much as it has. Now Bush is in the box and Chirac has racked up the points, so he can magnanimously offer a (somewhat) face-saving exit.

After all, that's how the game is played, isn't it? Sorry you lost this round, old chap. Better luck next time.

I fear that Chirac has made a fatal miscalculation. Bush isn't playing a game; he sincerely believes that Saddam has to go and he won't flinch if he has to damage or even destroy the UN in the process of removing him. For all the rhetoric about cowboys and simplistic Americans, Chirac didn't truly believe that he was facing one.

The consequences of that mistake will be staggering.

Update: Steven responds that he doesn't think Chirac could be that stupid. I agree that Chirac is no idiot, but I'm starting to wonder about how his view of the world differs from America's (see the previous two posts for more no the topic of world views). I no longer completely discount the notion that Chirac's world-view simply doesn't accomodate the notion that Bush will go ahead anyway. I'm far from certain of this hypothesis myself, but it should become obvious fairly soon. If this is what's going on, look for Chirac to change tone and direction sharply the second he realizes that he's not playing for Monopoly money.

Update: Does Chirac's tirade count as a change in tone and direction?

Update: Welcome InstaPundit readers -- come on in and have a look around. Here is another post with further thoughts about the EU meeting and what comes next.

If you haven't seen it yet, go read Vinod's excellent analysis of some of the major differences between the American and European points-of-view.

I suggest that we just drop the whole "gratitude for WW II" thing. It's not that the sentiment is wrong, but it's an off-topic rathole that can only lead to further anger and hardening of attitudes. That's the last thing we need right now. Please read to the end before you flame me.

Americans, please try to understand that most Europeans don't see a direct connection between the World War II and US policy today. From their standpoint, talk about gratitude is a non-sequitur, at best. To many, it seems like a demand for slavish obedience to US whims. Even those who are genuinely and deeply grateful to the United States get their hackles up when gratitude is obligatory and seems to be equated with obedience.

A more insidious and destructive consequence is that introducing "gratitude" into a discussion comes across as changing the topic, because they don't see the connection in the first place. It leaves the impression that you've given up on arguing the merits and have been reduced to calling in old favors to get your way. It ends up seeming petulant, manipulative and insulting. In short, it polarizes the discussion and eliminates any chance of finding common ground.

That doesn't make it wrong, just ... unhelpful.

Europeans, please try to understand that most Americans do see a direct connection between World War II and the present day. Americans travelled halfway around the globe, to fight and die in Europe's war, and they paid the butchers bill for Europe's failure to act before crisis grew into tragedy. And they stayed -- to nurse weary Europe back to health, at first, and later to defend their allies both old and new against the danger that arose in the east.

Now America is under attack and some of those "allies" won't even stand clear and allow her to defend herself, conspiring to deny America the use of her own armies - the very armies that have stood guard over Europe for more than half a century. That is the thread that binds World War II to the present for Americans, and the reason that they talk about gratitude. When you deny that link from yesterday's tyrants to the present, you seem - to American ears - to be disregarding and dishonoring more than fifty years of steadfast support from America. You seem ... ungrateful.

One side won't win over the other on the question of gratitude, but gratitude itself is a side issue. Let's focus the discussion on the real issues and avoid diving into this emotional and divisive rathole. Hopefully, a better understanding of what the other is thinking will make it easier to take a deep breath, take a step back, and turn the discussion to more productive topics.

Vladimir Putin, please call your office. Richard Perle has informed France that TotalFinaElf can kiss those lucrative Iraqi oil contracts goodbye. He's actually sending a message to Russia; we'll see if anybody picks up the phone.

The Blogosphere and even some of the mainstream media are coming around to the notion that we're facing Cold War II, as predicted here last month. Steven Den Beste, Andrew Sullivan, Mark Steyn and others are taking a look at the consequences of the new divide and how it should affect American policy from here on out.

I'm relieved that most of the commentary is sober and thoughtful rather than triumphalist or overtly belligerent, but I worry about the bitterness I see from some toward French and Germans in general (as opposed to the governments of France and Germany). Nations on both sides of the new divide are at least nominally democratic, which means that public opinion is a much more potent weapon than in the first cold war. Open hostility and disdain will only turn people away.

I also depart a bit from the conventional wisdom that France and Germany have isolated themselves hopelessly within Europe. They're isolated at the moment, but many of the pro-American leaders (including Tony Blair) are sitting on the powder keg of negative public opinion and won't be able to hold out forever. France and Germany want to drag this pre-war period out as long as possible because every day weakens their opponents within Europe; as I've said elsewhere, the threat of war is much more damaging to public opinion than the fact of war, unless the war goes badly.

That's all I have time for now. Next up, why "gratitude" is both irrelevant and utterly important.

Sorry for the dearth of postings lately. I'm growing more worried about the long term as the tone of the discussion (in the blogosphere, at least) takes on an even nastier edge, but I haven't had a long enough break to properly organize my thoughts. I should have more on the topic later today or tomorrow. Some advice to President Bush has also been percolating and I'll blog that as well, time permitting.

In the meantime, have a look at these:

Always reliable Dilacerator explains why the collapse of NATO was inevitable. He's probably right, though I can imagine (could have imagined) a shift in NATO's role. Even if the end was unavoidable, it didn't have to be this ugly and destructive.

Amiland cites a Spiegel Online interview and worries about the corresponding online poll. The article is horrible but I'm the poll doesn't concern me -- it's an online poll and is unlikely to be even remotely representative of the population as a whole.

Cinderella Bloggerfeller covers an interesting debate between intellectuals from "old" and "new" Europe in a Polish daily paper.

A nice Andrew Sullivan piece on the moral arguments in favor of war in Iraq.

This Prague Post article does a nice job, too.

If North Korea wasn't horrifying, it would be hilarious. It's pretty much impossible to parody the KCNA (Korean Central News Service). In the midst of famine and nuclear brinksmanship, the DPRK takes time out for the "7th Kimjongilia Show" (a flower show) in honor of dear leader Kim Jong Il.

Yasser and Kim, sittin' in a tree... From the today's entry at KCNA:

Floral basket to Kim Jong Il from Palestinian President
Pyongyang, February 11 (KCNA) - General Secretary Kim Jong Il
received a floral basket from Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to
mark his birthday. ...

Something to Hide? In an update way at the end of this post, Steven Den Beste wonders:

The governments of France and Germany must know that Americans are starting to wonder whether they're trying to prevent revelation of collaboration. They have to know that because it was on the WSJ's web site on Monday. Why aren't they saying anything about this? If they really were innocent you'd think they'd have issued denials and demanded retractions and apologies.

Nah. In their shoes, I'd just ignore the claim and hope it goes away. If they're actually guilty, they might start quietly shredding documents and a few witnesses might have "accidents," just in case, but commenting at this point would just draw unwanted attention.

What's one more weasel amongst friends?: I haven't seen this in the English language press yet, but Focus magazine is reporting that China has joined the Axis of Weasels. They didn't phrase it exactly like that, of course.

This might lead to a shift to the "Embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy for dealing with the Weasel-Bloc's "Mirage" plan. It certainly increases the cost of the "discredit and ignore" approach, unless President Bush has one hell of an ace up his sleeve.

Update: The various US news outlets are now reporting this, too.

Such Consistency

Now this pisses me off (Hat tip: Merde in France). France is opposing NATO involvement in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. Why?:

Nato diplomats said France's main objection to going out of area was that it meant letting the US use Nato beyond its traditional role of providing collective defence on its own territory.

Didn't France veto an attempt by NATO to "provide collective defense on its own territory" just yesterday?

What's the procedure for booting a member country out of NATO?

One Step Too Far

Interesting. Standing against the US on Iraq and roughing up the UN went over pretty well, but sabotaging NATO might just have been one step too far. I'm back in the states so I don't know what the man in the street thinks, but the tone of press reports about the French/German/Belgian betrayal of Turkey is surprisingly negative.

I'll translate (somewhat liberally) this one, by ex-General Klaus Naumann, because it's relatively short and to the point:

Germany, Belgium and France have taken an axe to the roots of NATO. For no comprehensible reason they have blocked preventative preparation to protect alliance partner Turkey.

This was about planning -- paper -- not about sending troops. Agreeing to plan brings no further obligations.

Germany's security depended for 40 years on the fact that NATO planned the defense of Germany against Soviet attack.

What would we German's have said, if Iceland had vetoed that planning? We would have felt betrayed.

The Turks can now expect that of the Germans. Turkey was one of the three NATO countries that supported the reunification of Germany without hesitation. France and Belgium did not.

Does planning make a war in Iraq more likely? No. Precisely the opposite.

Whoever reduces pressure on the dictator, removes the last chance for peace. These three have done that.

Whoever then damages NATO, splits America from Europe. That will lead to to instability (insecurity) in Europe, long after Saddam.

Is fear of responsibility and risk in Berlin worth that? Berlin could become the gravedigger for NATO. The EU and UN could be the next victims.

Some thanks for 50 years of security.

If you read German, you might also want to look at these (some links might be valid for a limited time):

A Rubble Heap

No Good Friends Left

Has Schr�der destroyed NATO?

The Spike-Helmeted Pacifist

This is just a sampling - the actual outcry is broad and deep, with hardly a voice in support of Schr�der.

All in all, reading this has made me a bit more optimistic about the longer term prospects for the German-American relationship. A lot depends on how this is playing with the "German Street", but the political establishment clearly understands the importance of the transatlantic link and is genuinely horrified at the damage that Schr�der is doing. It's too late to undo all of Schr�der's damage and trust will be last to return, but some kind of rapprochement might be possible, if the government falls or if Schr�der is reined in in time.

So here's the 50,000 Euro question: What are the odds that the Schr�der government will fall soon enough to do any good?

Update: Thanks to PapaScott for the translation for "Pickelhaube"

Update: Amiland is reporting efforts to get Schr�der to resign and wondering if we're about to see the collapse of the government.

Update: Here is a link to an (English langugage) BBC roundup of European press statements on the NATO debacle, including the S�ddeutsche Zeitung article cited above.

Something is rotten just south of Denmark

Steven Den Beste is chewing over the behavior of Germany and France at the UN and in NATO and the sheer destructive nature of it is bringing him back to the "something to hide" theory. James Taranto is starting to wonder again, too.

I vacillate a bit on this one, but I don't think treachery on its own is an adequate or likely explanation. I think we're seeing a tragic confluence of motives.

For Chirac and France, I still believe that simple anti-American posturing and delusions of relevance explain most of the resistance. The government of France, though constrained during the first Cold War by fear of the Soviets, has been institutionally anti-American for decades. The French political classes view themselves as the natural leaders of Europe and only grudgingly suffer the Germans (not to mention the British). NATO has been a positive annoyance, but they cherish their seat on the UNSC, which allows them to punch way above their weight on the world stage.

It isn't too much of a stretch to think that the French political classes believe that they can rally the world to their banner and lead the opposition to the odious hyperpower. This is their glorious resurgance onto the world scene, and the fact that Germany is (temporarily, at least) willing to follow their lead only makes it sweeter. Now even Russia seems to be on board. In fact, I'm moderately concerned about Russia joining the French -- a French/Russian/German Weasel-Bloc is more of a threat than a purely Franco-German one, and the fact that Putin, who is a survivor himself, seems willing to commit to France indicates that he thinks their odds are good.

Schr�der's behavior makes less sense to me, and this is where I think treachery might be a factor. Germany is not institutionally anti-American, and Schr�der's sudden swing is a shock to the career bureaucrats (witness this denunciation by a retired general). The fact that Fischer himself was reportedly left in the dark leads to the conclusion that Schr�der is personally running the show.

What if Schr�der himself has something to hide? If the government as a whole were implicated, Fischer and the whole machinery of government would be engaged, but if the risk is to Schr�der himself the picture suddenly clarifies. A lot. Recall that Helmut Kohl was humiliated and ostracized for corruption and that assorted other ministers and politicians (including Schr�der's ex-defense minister Scharping) have fallen for those and lesser sins.

What if Schr�der has been taking money from somebody who has shady dealings with Iraq? This is a man who is willing to sue over reports that he dyes his hair -- what would he be willing to risk to hide evidence that he's on the take to a hideous dictator? A possibly fatal wound to the UN, where Germany already has little influence? No problem at all. The end of NATO? The EU? Who can say?

When I Grow Up...

..I wanna rant like this.

Et tu, Gerhard?

With the UN a dead man walking, France has set her sights on Nato. France, Belgium and Germany today vetoed NATO planning for the defense of Turkey, on the grounds that it planning to defend Turkey would increase tensions. This is transparently false, as Turkey will just get defenses (e.g. Patriot missles from the Netherlands) through a series of bilateral agreements instead. The only practical effect of this blockade is to critically weaken the alliance.

Severely wounding the UN was a mixed-bag for France, but killing NATO is 100% pure, crunchy anti-American goodness. NATO is one of the strongest ties binding the US with Europe, and killing or wounding NATO decreases American influence -- all to the good, if you're France. The fact that Germany, historically a counterweight to French influence, is onboard for the coup de grace just makes it all the more delicious. The ideal outcome is that Germany moves into the French orbit, but even the worst case is pretty good. France wins even if post-Schroeder Germany wakes up full of regrets and with a hangover -- trust is the hardest thing to repair and the US-German relationship will probably never be what it once was.

What I don't understand is what Schroeder is thinking. It's hard to see how this will end well for Germany.

Weasel-Bloc "Peace" Plan

Donald Rumsfeld had barely finished reopening the door for erstwhile allies when they slammed it shut on his fingers. Reports quickly surfaced of a Franco-German plan to "avoid war" by sending thousands of additional weapons inspectors and backing them up with lightly armed blue helmets.

Steven Den Beste worries that the proposal will block military action against Iraq, but Instapundit thinks that preparations are too far along to be derailed. They're both mistaking the point of the Franco-German diplomatic offensive.

This proposal neither a serious attempt to disarm Iraq nor even an attempt to prevent the coalition from taking action. This is a diplomatic PR exercise designed to make George Bush look even less palatable to the European voter. If they were serious about trying to implement a "muscular" inspection regime, they wouldn't have sat on the proposal until it's too late to give it serious consideration. Of course, if they had come forward months ago, they would have had to defend it on its dubious merits.

This way, Bush is left with the unpalatable choice of either backing down or going to war with a superficially appealing but unexamined "peaceful alternative" on the table. What's a President to do? As I see it, there are two ways to go:

Alternative 1: Work to discredit the weasels and their plan, but otherwise ignore them. As part of a coordinated PR offensive, cast aspersions freely:

France has billions of dollars of oil contract's with Saddam Hussein. Is Chirac doing the bidding of Total-Fina? Is it all about the oil?

German companies lead the list of sanctions busters. Is Schroeder just working to preserve an illegal market for German companies, or does he maybe have something to hide?

After Srebenica, blue helmets just aren't credible.

Chirac will probably be prosecuted the minute he leaves office

Schroeder is a thin-skinned, hair-dyeing philanderer who is looking to divert attention from the fact that he is tax happy and has no clue how to fix his domestic problems.

Some of this could come from the administration itself, but some of the nastier attacks shouldn't. None of this would actually tilt public opinion in any significant way before the war, but it paves the way for a second campaign later on. If the war in Iraq is seen as successful (Saddam is deposed with few casualties, enough hidden WMD programs are discovered to justify the attack and the reconstruction process is administered for the benefit of the people of Iraq), a second campaign could effectively capitalize on any doubts sown by the first campaign. If the war goes badly on any of those counts, all bets are off.

Alternative 2: Embrace, extend and destroy the weasel plan. Agree to give the plan a try (probably, but not necessarily, reluctantly), but extend it such that Saddam and/or the even the weasels themselves will refuse to go along. For example, by insisting on the use of coalition troops to back up inspectors ("those blue helmets are _so_ unreliable"). The danger to this approach is that you end up embracing it but don't succeed in destroying it.

So far, the administration seems to be going for alternative one, which seems like the safest course. If Afghanistan is a guide, the threat of military action is actually worse for the public mood than the military action itself. As long as the threat of a war with unknown consequences is looming, the Bush administration faces a huge disadvantage in the court of world public opinion. If (colossal subjunctive, I know) the war in Iraq goes well, he has another chance to win over world opinion.

President Bush's immediate concern is successfully disarming Iraq, but he should also be looking a few moves ahead to the looming second Cold War. A few well-placed seeds planted now could yield major returns over the coming few years.

Update: Instapundit reader Chuck Herrit sees the same game of poker. I'm not quite as sanquine about the prospect as Glenn seems to be, but I do think that it's manageable, if risky. One thought that brings some comfort is that Bush has proven to be quite adept at political Judo - he'll lure his opponents off-balance and topple them with a tiny nudge. At the moment, I don't know what that nudge might be, but the Weasel Bloc is clearly hyperextended right now.

Update: FWIW, Bild reports that Schroeder sprung the Weasel Plan without consulting or even informing Joschka Fischer, which has led to an "ice age" between the two men. If true, it further illustrates that: 1) the proposal is a PR tactic rather than a serious plan, and 2) Schroeder has no qualms about screwing his "allies" for what he perceives to be personal gain.

Update:Collin May nails the uselessness of the Franco-German plan.

Rumsfeld on TV

In a television interview (hat tip: Amiland) recorded prior to his speech, Rumsfeld was also conciliatory (but not apologetic) for his earlier statement that seemed to place Germany on a level with Libya and Cuba. He reiterated the facts behind the statement (that only Libya, Cuba & Germany have publicly announced that they will not under any circumstances support military action against Iraq) but was careful this time not to ruffle feathers in the process.

He carefully dodged a question about the relationship between the Bush & Schroeder governments (I don't have the English, so this is translated back from the German: "I won't comment on this or any other administration. Germans vote, this is a democratic country, and they elect who they will."), but took pains to say nice things about Germany and Germans in general and about and the relationship between the people of the US and Germany.

In short, I think he took pretty much the right tone both in his speech and in the interview.

And I say that despite the fact that he was ambushed by the Axis of Weasels almost before he was finished speaking. More an that in a bit...

Rumsfeld in Munich

In his Munich speech this weekend, Donald Rumsfeld carefully outlined the case for action against Iraq and pointed out that a coaltion of dozens of like-minded nations is hardly unilateral. He at least attempted to take some of the spin off of some his recent comments without retracting the substance of any of them. All in all, he seemed to be offering opponents one last chance to climb down.

Although he was a bit conciliatory towards Europe in general, he was brutal when it came to the UN. He bluntly laid out the case that the UN has no credibility left, and went on to hammer it for not even attempting to regain credibility. His comparison of the UN to the League of Nations was not favorable, and he explicitly ridiculed the fact that Libya and Iraq are chairing the Human Rights and Disarmament commisions, respectively. Although the pundits have been all over the UN for those two choices, this is the first time I've seen a high government official publicly take the UN to task for it. This part of Rumsfeld's speech was clearly a first draft of an epitaph for the UN.

He also warned that continued obstructionism in NATO would place that alliance in equally dire straits. He doesn't seem to have written the alliance off yet, but this was a shot across the bow.