Munich's making history again
Perhaps Munich will live up to its historical reputation, after all. You know, that one involving war and peace and their hanging in the balance and documents being waved that turn out to be, well, infamous. Out of the blue, and much to the annoyance of the NATO partners form the other side of the Atlantic, German officials here have started dropping strong hints that France and Germany are considering a plan to deploy thousands of United Nations peacekeepers within Iraq to support beefed-up weapons searches by hundreds more weapons inspectors. At the same time, the whole of Iraq would be declared a no-fly zone, and sanctions on exports to Iraq would be tightened.
Both the BBC and Germany's leading newsweekly, Der Spiegel, are reporting the move and word is that the plan will be made public on Thursday in Berlin and Paris.
Such a move will not find favour in Washington, of course. The word here is that Rumsfeld and team were "livid" that they first heard about the initiative from the press and not from their German counterparts. Standing here in the heart of Old Europe, one can feel the transatlantic rift widening by the minute.
Comments
It's very bad style to let the Americans know about it over the press, and the content of the initiative is truly harebrained:
UN troops go in, but it's the 200.000 American soldiers who are supposed to enforce the Iraqis' good behaviour. Why should the Americans go for that? I can't think of no reason.
And a UN protectorate? Please!
Posted by: Ralf Goergens | February 8, 2003 11:44 PM
> It's very bad style to let the Americans know about it over the press
Not really.
> UN troops go in, but it's the 200.000 American soldiers who are supposed to enforce the Iraqis' good behaviour. Why should the Americans go for that? I can't think of a reason.
I can, at least for something similar that has been done in the past.
We can divide Iraq into "zones of occupation" with the Euros/UN taking care of one and the US taking care of the other, each responsible for its own transportation, security, and the removal of WMDs in its area.
Any bets on which way Iraqis move? If you say "towards the US region", you understand the reason why the US might go along.
Posted by: Andy Freeman | February 9, 2003 12:45 AM
Rumsfeld would have preferred it to hear about it directly.
I think the impotence of UN and EU are pretty much established by now, so I can't see why Bush should go along with it.
Posted by: Ralf Goergens | February 9, 2003 12:53 AM
"I think the impotence of UN and EU are pretty much established by now, so I can't see why Bush should go along with it."
Just so. And au revoir to NATO, too.
I do think it fitting, though, the French and the Germans want the us to back them up with our muscle, blood, and treasure. Typical: they reap the benefits, we pay the costs. Too simplisme!, to borrow the weasels' word.
Posted by: wm. tyroler | February 9, 2003 2:14 AM
What they are up to.
Posted by: Marcus Tullius Cicero | February 9, 2003 2:24 AM
The French/German plan is even worse than reported. The best English language source I've found is UPI:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030208-070617-2097r
Posted by: Carl | February 9, 2003 2:38 AM
Carl,
the UPI article leaves out the important detail that the American troops in the Gulf are supposed to back up the German-French plans with force.
Posted by: Ralf Goergens | February 9, 2003 3:16 AM
...out of the goodness of our hearts? Our beating love for the French and German governments? Our determination that no matter what happens, TotalFinaElf must keep its oil contracts?
I mean, what is the theory supposed to be here?
Posted by: jeanne a e devoto | February 9, 2003 4:19 AM
> I think the impotence of UN and EU are pretty much established by now,
Maybe among certain groups, but others still haven't gotten the message.
> so I can't see why Bush should go along with it.
My variation delivers that message in a way that even they will understand. Bush has a history of winning by giving people what they say that they want, good and hard.
Any bets on whether the Euros/UN would accept an offer to take complete responsiblity for a portion of Iraq?
Any guesses on what the first visible evidence of their failure would be?
Posted by: Andy Freeman | February 9, 2003 7:30 AM
Not necessarily. Remember, this isn't like the post-WWII partition of Germany, where each side governed its sector. This plan leaves Saddam Hussein and his merry band of Ba'athists in power. (I strongly suspect France would reject out of hand any variation on the plan that left this feature out. No Saddam means no oil-for-food and leaves the state of TFE's contracts in question.)
So a partition such as you suggest, if it were to be accepted by the French government, would not involve the US and EU taking "complete responsibility" for portions of Iraq in any case. Their only area of authority would be playing footsie with the army while trying to find weapons. We'd end up in the same position as the UN inspector a couple of weeks ago, who sat in his truck like a good German while an Iraqi man was dragged off screaming for help. Life in the American sector would be no better than life in the EU sector, because neither would be governing their sector.
Posted by: jeanne a e devoto | February 9, 2003 9:29 AM
> So a partition such as you suggest, if it were to be accepted by the French government, would not involve the US and EU taking "complete responsibility" for portions of Iraq in any case.
Actually, it would. Or rather, the US would effectively take complete control, much as the USSR did in Eastern Europe, and the EU/UN could do as they please and are capable of in their zone. I don't know which would prove to be the more significant obstacle, but I am confident because of one or the other, they'd play footsie with Saddam and end up the worse for it.
Posted by: Andy Freeman | February 9, 2003 11:48 PM