Conflict of Interests

The word of the day is Bastards.

Let's talk about the war in Iraq, shall we? And let's talk about "International Law" "International Consensus Building" and the "United Nations."

I suddenly find myself aligned with some very conservative people over this issue, but, as lawyers say, Res Ipsa Loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

In the present conflict in Iraq, three nations, former imperial powers all, tried desperately to stop the war in order to... well, the claim was that it was in order to promote peace.

But Stephen DenBeste, one of the blogging world's most prolific and readable authors, had a different opinion, known as the Den Beste Theory (coined by Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds).

His predictions are bearing fruit. You should click the links. You'll find French perfidy, selling weapons in direct violation of the UN Sanctions that were, theoretically, killing babies (blood on the hands of the French and Germans, there) and Russian complicitness in training Saddams Super-thugs, the Mukhabarat. You'll find Russians spying for Iraq during the rush to war. And you ought to ask yourself - "was there, maybe, a conflict of interests on the Security Council?"

You'd learn things like that while America did indeed sell arms to Iraq during the Cold War, weapons that Saddam would in turn use on Iran and his own people, most of the weapons and the training on how to use them came from France and Germany.

The two amazing things about the fall of this regime, to me, are the fact that Iraqis are finally able to stand on their street corners and congregate (just like Americans who protested against this war could do, while blithely ignoring the fact that Iraqis couldn't) and even complain about their invaders (that's us, the Americans) without fear of death, rape, mutilation or the destruction of ones entire family. In a clannish country like Iraq, this is enormous. No more rape of wives in front of families, organized by the government. No more children's prisons for children whose only crime is not swearing a loyalty oath. The fact that such a place exists turns my stomache. That these places exist elsewhere just tells me that this is not yet the best of all possible worlds, and there is work to do.

The second thing is what we're uncovering, as the light of our Marines shines into the dark closets of Iraq, and uncovers the hidden atrocities.

The fact that there are "Major terrorist training camps" just outside of Baghdad doesn't seem to strike a chord with many people. It does with me.

We lifted the carpet on the Iraqi regime. We found what we expected - torture, murder, terrorism - we're still looking for WMDs. But what we didn't expect, or, more to the point, what I didn't expect, was recent UN Sanction Busting deals with the regime. That our allies, effectively, stabbed us and the United Nations in the back. Paperwork to indicate that those in the UN who were trying to stop the war were doing so purely for personal gain, and to cover their own asses. This should surprise nobody, but it should also throw a little cold water into the face of those who claimed that this war was unjustified because there was no "international consensus" and it violated "international law"

The funny thing about that is that there is no "international law." There is the law of power (he who's got it has ascendancy) there's the resolutions passed at the United Nations (Binding when Security Council, nonbinding otherwise) and there are treaties. There is no non-partisan independant judiciary, no executive and no legislative body. There is no president for life of the world, there is no king, no mullah and no pope, running things for everybody. It might be more simple if there were, but the simple fact is, there is not.

So you are left with Power, the UN and Treaties.

In reverse order:
By treaty, the United States was well within its rights to attack Iraq, and had made that clear under the Clinton administration, with operation Desert Fox. Perhaps (and I don't know this) if the country wasn't so cynical about the Lewinsky affair, so bloated with Dot Com dollars and Clinton had eschewed half measures, we could have finished the job then. We didn't. Blame goes all around - the Republicans for tying up the president over nothing, and Clinton for not finishing a job he started. The treaties ending the Gulf War were clearly violated by Iraq. In fact, what most people ignore is that there were no Treaties, and if I'm not mistaken, there was no surrender. There was only a cease fire. Breached, by Saddam.

The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 to enact a 17th resolution calling for full immediate cooperation with weapons inspectors by Iraq. They did not. And similarly, I didn't hear a single "Peace Protestor" complain that all Saddam had to do was comply with the "International Community" and "International Law." Resolution 1441, which is the closest thing to "International Law" there is on the subject, says clearly:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

But they went ahead and gave Iraq another chance to comply. The question wasn't, by law, whether Iraq had any WMDs, by the text of the resolution. It was whether the UN inspectors had noted "... false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below; " 11 and 12 ultimately handed power to Hans Blix, the disgraced and derided and "Too Careful" weapons inspector who was documented taking the word of an Iraqi minister over that of his own team. Of course, if we continue to follow the thesis that there was a conflict of interests, it begins to make sense. If France and Germany are selling the chemical weapons, then of course they want an incompetent to search for them.

Sadly for the people of Iraq, nobody seemed to care. And certainly, nobody in the "international community" who make the "international laws" tried to enforce the specific resolutions that the United Nations had already made clear that Iraq violated. So what was left? Two choices - doing nothing and assuming everything would be alright, or applying the third "International Law" - Force.

Which, of course, we did. To amazing effect. Thousands of Jihadis left their homes, went to Iraq to protect it, and ended up getting themselves killed. The Palestinians, at least, owed Saddam a blood debt - paying off the $25,000 per suicide for suicide bombings was obviously paying dividends.

They also managed to piss off the locals, who rather (and here's another point that the "peace protestors" all seem to ignore) really fucking hated their violently appointed dictator for life.

With our allies stabbing us in the back (and paperwork to prove it) and the United Nations manned by those allies, with a total lack of "International Law" and with, in less than a month, food, water, and security returning to almost every major city, I think you can say that this changes everything. The United States can't trust the French, it seems. And Germany has reduced itself to irrelevance (although thinking back on the first two world wars, that may not be the worst thing in the world) Russia showing itself to be none-too-trustworthy, and a coalition of good, staunch friends, you may see things changing for the better, finally.

The fall of Iraq leaves hope for an Israel/Palestine solution. Palestine has a prime minister, and is getting a cabinet. Sharon is willing to compromise. Payments for suicide bombings will likely drop, unless the Saudis, Iranians or Syrians would like to take up the slack.

In my dream world, this leads to very good things - Palestine gets itself a state, and becomes a productive and peaceful member of the international community. Arab honor is "satisfied" when that happens (although Arab Honor wasn't impinged when Kuwait didn't lift a finger to help, but I digress) and then the "Arab Street" can calm down and join the other "streets" in trying to make the planet better, more peaceful, and allowing us all to live together in harmony. It's a long shot, but I believe that the fall of Iraq is going to be seen akin to the fall of Mussolini's Italy. The start of a total sea change. It gives me great hope that after this period of darkness, when the forces of "Peace" are using violence and intimidation. Obviously, these people don't represent the whole "peace" movement, but it seems to me like they're actually in the way of peace. Like Chaimberlain, only with text messaging.

That perhaps you could see Syria address its illegal occupation of Lebanon. Maybe, just maybe, this will turn out better than it started.

I believe, and if people who disagree can temporarily suspend disbelief and pretend that their visceral hatred of George Bush isn't clouding their eyes, that this might, really, be the start of something great and peaceful. Keep your eye on the long term ball. Ignore momentary looting of Baghdad (a people, suddenly free of fear of capricious fear of death, are rioting and looting like Los Angelenos did and Detroit does...) and look longer term than this week. I am hopeful.

Posted by Swerdloff at April 13, 2003 06:38 PM