Posted on 08/01/2004 9:26:24 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
John Kerry has claimed and/or implied over and over again that he can build a coalition of nations to finish the "job" in Iraq and handle future international threats. He also stated and/or implied many times that George Bush went to war "alone", that Bush is a unilateralist, etc.. Kerry apparently has amnesia when it comes to Bill Clinton on coalition building.
In 1998, China, Russia, and France opposed the 1998 air strikes on Iraq by Britain and the United States forces. On December 17, 1998, CNN reported:
China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi told reporters, "The United States has not received permission from the U.N. Security Council and took unilateral action in using force against Iraq, violating the U.N. charter and international principles . . . We are very upset at the U.S. military action towards Iraq . . . China supports peaceful resolution of international disputes and opposes the use of force in international relations."
Russia demanded an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council. Sweden's U.N. ambassador, Hans Dahlgren, said the council should have been consulted before any action was taken. And in the Middle East, a number of countries condemned the military action, called Operation Desert Fox, as an act of aggression.
France warned of "grave consequences" for the Iraqi people from the use of force. Iraq's biggest Western arms supplier in the 1970s and 1980s, French soldiers fought alongside those from the United States and Britain in the 1991 Gulf War coalition that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. France still takes part in Operation Southern Watch enforcing a no-fly zone over southern Iraq. However, it has opposed military action in recent standoffs over Iraq's obstruction of U.N. inspections to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and insisted that Baghdad should be offered an end to economic sanctions if it complied fully.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York called it "a sad day for the United Nations and for the rest of the world."
An November 5, 1998 CNN article by Gary Tuchman and Jamie McIntyre reads:
"The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. . . "
But although the resolution [1205] is considered legal and binding, it spells out no consequences should Iraq continue to refuse to comply with inspections. And the resolution does not authorize the use of military force to get compliance from Baghdad.
The original text did call the Iraqi non-compliance a threat to international peace and security. The U.N. charter allows action in such a case. But that reference to any threat was removed after lobbying by Russia, France and China.
Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov also warned that any attempt to use force against Iraq would have "highly unpredictable and dangerous consequences" for Middle East peace and future U.N. efforts to monitor Baghdad's weapons programs.
China also appealed to all sides to refrain from any action that might make the dispute worse. "Only through dialogue and consultation and confidence-building can we resolve the present problem," said Chinese Ambassador Huasun Qin.
However, the United States and the United Kingdom both insist they are authorized by previous U.N. resolutions to take military action.
"Iraq must turn back from the dangerous and self-defeating course it has chosen," said Acting U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh. He noted that President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "have emphasized that all options are on the table and the United States has the authority to act."
In the 11th Hour Jules Lobel and Michael Ratner wrote:
On November 5, 1998, at its 3939th meeting, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1205, which condemned Iraq’s decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM as "a flagrant violation of Resolution 687" but did not authorize the use of force. See Josh Friedman, UN Council Scolds Iraq, Condemnation Falls Short of Military Threat, Newsday, Nov. 6, 1998, at A18. Various members stressed, as they had in February, the "prerogatives" of the Council and argued that its control over international peace and security "must not be circumvented."
Only three Security Council members Japan, the United States and Britain spoke in favor of the [1998] air strikes . . . The Russians and Chinese accused the United States and the United Kingdom of an "unprovoked act of force" that "violated the principles of international law and the principle of the Charter" . . . A number of nonpermanent members opposed the use of force and reiterated that force must be authorized by the Security Council.
In a December 16, 2003 New York Times article, Claudia Rosett wrote:
"...in the 1990's, as the Iraqi dictator's depravities became increasingly evident to the rest of the world, that list narrowed. Under the United Nations oil-for-food program, the despot got to tap his preferred business partners. And over the course of the seven-year program - involving the sale of $65 billion worth of oil and purchase of more than $39 billion worth of supplies and services - he turned to contractors in the countries that ultimately proved most energetic in protesting his ouster: Russia, France and, to a lesser extent, Germany and China.
What began as a relief program for Iraqis suffering under sanctions turned into a multibillion-dollar contracting business flowing through the shrouded books of the United Nations. By the end, the Russians were selling the Baathist elite luxury cars, the French were providing broadcasting equipment for the Information Ministry and the Germans and Chinese worked on the phone system.
The United Nations refused to disclose anything beyond the generic details of the contracts - the public still doesn't know the actual names of the contractors, what they earned and what they shipped to Iraq. Now, with control over the remains of the program shifting to the Coalition Provisional Authority, those records should be released.
Not only should the Iraqi people know what their money went for, the data could provide an illuminating context for the current Russian, French and German indignation over the American contracting list, and for the diplomatic jousting of the past year. Full disclosure might also help us figure out which foreign contractors were deeply complicit with the Baathist regime and which simply shipped in rice at a reasonable price.
In any case, Old Europe's indignation over the list is a marvel of hypocrisy. When Saddam Hussein specified under the oil-for-food program that that the billions generated by the program all flow through one French bank, BNP Paribas, French President Jacques Chirac did not indignantly demand, in the interest of fair play, that the business be divided among banks of various nations. It is also curious that Russia, which in its own post-tyranny days received billions in aid, only to default on its debt 1998, is now demanding back from free Iraqis every nickel it cheerfully loaned to the dictator."
Thus it is clear that opposition by China, Russia and France to the war with Iraq was not caused by President George Bush, but was due to ongoing opposition by those nations since 1998, and possibly before. It has also been reported that at least some of that opposition was generated by financial incentives.
It should also be noted that though John Kerry opposed the 1991 Gulf War, he provided unwavering support for military action against Iraq from the 1998 "unilateral bombing" by the United States and Britain, until after his vote in 2003 authorizing war with Iraq (that is when he learned he could not secure the Democratic nomination unless he did another flip flop).
Sorry about the formatting of the post. The HTML looked much different in my browser. Note the last two paragraphs are mine (my opinion) and not Claudia Rosett's.
Amazing that in 1997 Kerry told Crossfire host that Clinton would show leadership if he dealt with Iraq regardless of whether the UN Security Council approved or not. He also had harsh words for France and Germany.
How things have changed since 1997.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1087918/posts
>> Amazing that in 1997 Kerry told Crossfire host that Clinton would show leadership if he dealt with Iraq regardless of whether the UN Security Council approved or not. He also had harsh words for France and Germany.
Wow! Thanks for the link, Peach.
Share it with friends. We need to spread the word.
Granted TehRAYza shows that questions about their statements are not welcome, but why can't a newsie simply ask "tell us how" or "give me an example," "such as," "what do you mean it's a secret?" ...
Yea, he'll bring the Viet kong into the coalition.
Man, what a lardass blowhard. President George H.W. Bush organized a coalition and ejected Iraq from Kuwait. President George W. Bush didn't wait for no steenking coalition. He kicked Saddam's butt so hard he still can't sit down cause it still hurts. President Clinton relied on the U.N. and the U.N. promptly accepted bribes and kickbacks while helpless people were slaughtered. President Truman relied on a coalition and it helped fight Korea into a glorious stalemate. Blowhard Kerry should stick to what he knows best. And right now I can't think of anything in particular that he knows best.
Gee... Call me a bit of a peessimist here, but one important element was missing regarding Kerry's coalition building blather...
The "HOW"...
Are the "useful idiots" ever going to get around to asking that one single question?
A coalition requires a mission or agenda. If his is not ours there is no merit in forming it.
Perhaps with Kerry's experience in unauthorized negotiations with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong he will be able to talk our enemies into the coalition.
>> Perhaps with Kerry's experience in unauthorized negotiations with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong he will be able to talk our enemies into the coalition.
I had not considered that. Good point.
You hit on the meat of the matter IMO. For what, and for whom, would Kerry form a coalition? He's a tad late on the Iraq war, so he must have something else in mind.
>> Who is the DNC publicist this year?
You mean, besides Michael Moore?
If you were a foreign leader--After watching the Dems and Kerry lie and obfuscate about their beliefs and ideology--would you believe anything Kerry says?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.