Thursday, July 01, 2004
BACK TO THE OIL
Actually, I am beginning to see why Caroline Hawley's report on Iraq this morning was so different from the standard BBC line.
As questions of so-called "American imperialism" are rapidly fading from the scene, as Iraq's leaders become prominent and say things that the BBC doesn't want to hear, and most importantly as the trial of Saddam begins to take center-stage, the BBC is showing signs of getting bored by, and even tired of, Iraq.
On the other hand, the crisis in Sudan seems a new place to question U.S. foreign policy motives. Elizabeth Blunt, BBC Africa analyst, tells us:
However:
And in this Paul Reynolds blather -- Reynolds by the way doesn't mention Sudan, but probably just because he ran out of space; he mentions just about everywhere else -- we get views from a "standard" cast of "varying" characters, as well as the usual sharp "insights" that make reading Reynolds so much fun.
First, the concerned Bush defender. Ladies and gentlemen, the "neo-conservative":
Second, the "scholar":
Lastly, the Thatcherite, who's concerned about transatlantic relations. That Reynolds saves the conservative Briton for last is apparently supposed to serve as a defining example of what's wrong -- that those who would normally "back the U.S.", as Thatcher backed Reagan, are worried that Bush is out of control:
That presumes the Bush administration will be re-elected. Of course it will be. They are EVIL!, remember. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, July 01, 2004
Actually, I am beginning to see why Caroline Hawley's report on Iraq this morning was so different from the standard BBC line.
As questions of so-called "American imperialism" are rapidly fading from the scene, as Iraq's leaders become prominent and say things that the BBC doesn't want to hear, and most importantly as the trial of Saddam begins to take center-stage, the BBC is showing signs of getting bored by, and even tired of, Iraq.
On the other hand, the crisis in Sudan seems a new place to question U.S. foreign policy motives. Elizabeth Blunt, BBC Africa analyst, tells us:
. . . The relationship between Sudan and the United States is a curious one.But it isn't necessarily just about "oil". Oh, no, it might be those pestering, fundamentalist Christians again. We are here regularly:
The Americans still list Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism, and formal diplomatic ties are at very low level.
Yet by deploying a mixture of aid and sanctions, Washington has brought about major changes of policy in Khartoum.
The US government has been the godparent of the peace agreement that seems finally to have ended the war in the south of Sudan.
Cynics often claim American foreign policy is driven by oil.
Sudan does have oil, and African producers are an alternative to the increasingly turbulent Middle East. . .
. . . Other issues are more likely to be driving Washington's policy."Nagging"? She actually wrote, "nagging." Well, darn it, but slavery and sharia tend to make the open-minded, democratic and, yes, even "right-wing Christians", a bit tense. It might even lead some to "nag" . . . and one would think that might be a tad understandable.
One is the pressure from right-wing Christian groups in the US, who have taken up the cause of their fellow Christians in Sudan.
Their nagging - on the issues of slavery and the forcible imposition of Sharia law - helped get sanctions imposed on Sudan in 1997. . .
However:
. . . the most urgent driving force is likely to be Sudan's place in President Bush's war against terrorism.Not to be picky, but President Bush's "war against terrorism"? Well, at least she didn't place that in quotes. But does she realize Britain is involved, too? Apparently, it is only "Bush's" -- and once there is no more Bush, then, the war ends?
It has a radical Islamist government which hosted Osama Bin Laden in the early 90s; a number of attacks against US interests were planned from Sudan.Almost there. Come on, get there quicker!
Since then the Americans have worked hard at persuading Khartoum to be more co-operative.She made it. But had she started with the most salient, single reason (slavery will vanish, and famine will end when reasonable government is in place; Islamist terror is the underlying problem), and placed it nearer THE BEGINNING, she could have saved us the trouble of wading through conjecture and innuendo to get to a substantive point.
Osama Bin Laden was expelled, training camps were closed, and the US state department says Sudan has "deepened its cooperation in investigating and arresting extremists".
Colin Powell now has to tread a fine line between putting pressure on the Sudanese government over its activities in Darfur, and driving it back into the arms of America's enemies.
And in this Paul Reynolds blather -- Reynolds by the way doesn't mention Sudan, but probably just because he ran out of space; he mentions just about everywhere else -- we get views from a "standard" cast of "varying" characters, as well as the usual sharp "insights" that make reading Reynolds so much fun.
First, the concerned Bush defender. Ladies and gentlemen, the "neo-conservative":
. . . Frank Gaffney, one of the spokesmen for the neo-conservative view which seeks to have the world reshaped, stands by the doctrine: "My guess is that if we see Iraq stabilised, you will see a greater confidence about US policy.What, one might ask, is the Reynolds/BBC definition of an "unqualified success"? We are left to wonder . . .
"If we come a cropper, it could result in a change of government in the United States. But any change in policy will augur badly for the United States and the international community."
He accepts, though, that Iraq, to say the least, has not been an unqualified success. . .
Second, the "scholar":
. . . A contrary view came from Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College, London."The mess" -- the mess was not the result of a brief battle, but of decades of Baathist oppression and mismanagement, which is now finished. Ah, well, if it don't fit -- try to ram it in anyway, right?
"Iraq might not yet be failure, but the opportunity will be hard to take up. It is up the Iraqis to make something of the mess they have been bequeathed.
"There was lack of preparation, resistance was underestimated and there was a lack of capacity to meet it. . .No, no, and, urr, no -- at least according to General Tommy Franks, who was actually in charge of running the campaign.
Professor Freedman thinks that the United States is already more cautious in foreign policy.Who wrote the professor's script here? North Korea? Iran? The Guardian? John Kerry?
"It is so over Iran and North Korea. The United States has been undermined by what happened in Iraq.
"It cannot be as swaggering as before. It needs allies and support. Hubris has a lot to answer for. Its diplomacy has been arrogant and incompetent, a dangerous combination."
It is noticeable that so many of America's friends are speaking like this.The professor is a friend? Gosh, with friends like those . . .
Lastly, the Thatcherite, who's concerned about transatlantic relations. That Reynolds saves the conservative Briton for last is apparently supposed to serve as a defining example of what's wrong -- that those who would normally "back the U.S.", as Thatcher backed Reagan, are worried that Bush is out of control:
Another is Lord Powell, who as Charles Powell was Margaret Thatcher's right-hand man during the Reagan years.My goodness, Reynolds apparently inadvertently quoted someone who made sense!
In an article for the Financial Times he wrote: "The first step is to recognise quite how bad transatlantic relations are.
"Europeans view the US as a unilateralist loudmouth ready to ride roughshod over international law. For most Americans, most Europeans are weedy and pusillanimous, soft on terrorism and rogue states.". . .
. . . "The appointment of someone with the calibre of Colin Powell as a presidential envoy to restore transatlantic relations in a second Bush administration would be the most persuasive evidence of America's intention to make a fresh start.". . .Lord Powell is probably right on Colin Powell. But the former clearly doesn't realize that the latter probably won't be able to take up such a post. Colin Powell is far too busy right now in Sudan, preparing the groundwork for the administration's next "war for oil".
That presumes the Bush administration will be re-elected. Of course it will be. They are EVIL!, remember. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, July 01, 2004
