I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted on 04/02/2003 7:47:06 AM PST by Steve Schulin
What was America's true motive for rushing into war against Iraq? Will U.S. unilateralism be a force to shape a new world order? Was Japan right to have shown support for the United States despite the absence of endorsement from the Security Council?
Former Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, who has been a driving force behind Japanese diplomacy for half a century, addressed these questions in a recent interview with Toru Hayano, an Asahi Shimbun senior columnist. Excerpts follow:
Q: What did you think of U.S. President George W. Bush's speech on the day the Iraq war began?
A: His true feelings came out here and there, confirming my sense of unease. I got the clear impression that President Bush is very much in favor of neo-conservatism, which is not far from fundamentalism.
Q: What do you think this war is? Preventive? Punitive? Or is it about oil rights?
A: Even though no evidence has emerged to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I nevertheless understand this war as a "war of retaliation against 9/11." Unless you see it this way, you can't put Bush's words in context-I am referring to his March 17 address, in which he said, "Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities."
Bush also said in the same address, "... responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide."
These words revealed his desire to retaliate. But because he could not voice this desire explicitly, he was unable to rally international public opinion. That, I think, was why Bush bunched nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons all together as "weapons of mass destruction" and blamed their existence solely on Saddam.
U.N.'s reason for existence
Q: What will become of the United Nations' reason for existence?
A: The United States has never held the United Nations in much regard. Only at Secretary of State Colin Powell's urging did Bush go through the United Nations, except his purpose was to take every advantage of it when he could.
America is aware that the United Nations has begun to function since the end of the Cold War. But America itself has become a Gulliver, so to speak. Being the only giant left in the world, America wants to break free of all the "restraining ropes" being used by those pesky Lilliputian members. Actually, that was what America did when it pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and refused to be a signatory to the U.N. resolution for the establishment of the International Criminal Court. But the bigger this Gulliver becomes, the rest of the U.N. membership will find greater significance in their organization.
Q: How do you feel about the actions of France and Germany?
A: Whether the German position reflects a majority view of the German people is open to question. It all began with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's election pledge, and I suppose one thing led to another.
In France's case, it has been the nation's fundamental diplomatic principle since Charles de Gaulle that the bigger America grows, the more shackles France must put on it.
I think the United States learned a very harsh diplomatic lesson from its failure to obtain the nine crucial Security Council votes (to sanction armed action against Iraq). It must have jolted America that its immediate neighbors-Canada and Mexico-could not be swayed. Without a question, this was a diplomatic fiasco for the United States. Diplomacy, after all, is not just about flexing muscle and acting tough. It requires a lot of "soft" touches as well.
Q: How will Iraq's postwar reconstruction go?
A: Postwar reconstruction is hardly being talked about in America. It will be a mess, and Bush is obviously thinking only of how best to stay out of it. He means to ask everybody else to deal with the mess.
After all, America started this war to punish evil. I am quite sure it will be a while before Washington starts discussing what to do after the war. In any event, U.N. involvement will be inevitable.
Q: For having at least tried in its own way to persuade the United States to go for a new U.N. resolution (to sanction military action against Iraq), don't you think Japan has played a relatively important role so far?
A: I should think so.
Q: Did the outcome represent a failure of Japanese diplomacy?
A: Since the United States has been playing the lead role throughout, I would not assess the outcome in terms of success or failure of Japanese diplomacy. Japan failed in the sense that it could not get America to heed any advice, but that was not Japan's fault. Remember, Japan was only a by-player.
Q: Don't you feel Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has been doing little else than defend America's position?
A: I am sure the outcome was not what Koizumi was hoping for. He wanted to stand by the principle of international cooperation and remain loyal to the United States at the same time, but he was forced into an "either-or" situation. It was not a happy situation at all. The ideal outcome for Japan would have been to uphold its alliance with the United States without having to go against the principle of international cooperation.
Q: In reducing the issue into an "either-or" question, Koizumi opted for alliance with the United States in the name of "national interest." But this alliance is not the only thing that serves Japan's national interest, is it?
A: It is extremely dangerous to get into your line of argument. If North Korea does not already possess weapons of mass destruction, it is believed to be at least ambitious to possess them. And the sobering reality is that Japan, to which the threat is the greatest, unfortunately has no deterrence power against North Korea. So what should Japan do? Arm itself?
Once you get into this line of argument, you practically open a Pandora's box. And given this reality, I believe the prime minister had no choice but to stand by the Japan-U.S. alliance. I could not have disagreed with his choice.
Q: What would you tell people who feel humiliated and disappointed that their nation is effectively like America's appendage?
A: We need to see the broader picture when we discuss Japan's reliance on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty for national defense. Since Japan provides bases to the U.S. military, the relationship is not that of complete dependence, but it is still a fact that Japan is dependent on America. And I believe this is what arouses those feelings of disappointment and humiliation. However, this is certainly not the first time people are having these feelings.
Q: Harping on those feelings would ultimately lead to talk of Japan arming itself with nuclear weapons, which the Liberal Democratic Party has struggled so hard throughout the post-World War II years to avert. Am I correct?
A: That is correct. For years, the public never really had to address this issue, but now it's happening. However, my sense so far is that fortunately, this argument is unlikely to develop into any serious discussion of Japan's nuclear armament. This is because now that North Korea is probably going for nuclear armament, anyone can see that disarming North Korea by force will also spell a certain doom for South Korea. This awareness puts a stop to any further discussion of Japan becoming a nuclear power.
U.S.-North Korea dialogue
Q: After Iraq, North Korea will be the focus of the international community, won't it?
A: In essence, I believe direct Washington-Pyongyang dialogue is the only way to go about the North Korea issue. But there is one danger here. Ultimately, Washington will have to conclude a mutual non-aggression pact with Pyongyang at the latter's insistence, and that will finally signal the end of the war that began in 1950. As a result, will the U.S. forces leave the Korean Peninsula, or will they stay? This is going to be an extremely difficult question. At the moment, nobody has any idea whether North Korea wants the U.S. military to leave or stay. But my guess is that Washington and Pyongyang will avoid going into that question.
Q: What do you think will become of the Japan-U.S. alliance?
A: Since Japan is providing bases to the U.S. military, Japan is not entirely indebted to America. But after Koizumi was forced to choose between this alliance and international cooperation, I am sure many people came to realize that this alliance is fraught with problems.
Q: Do you believe terrorism can be extirpated?
A: I think the answer has to depend on whether the world can resolve Islam-related problems during this century. If those problems could be fundamentally resolved, not through anything like a clash of civilizations, I believe terrorism would become a much smaller risk. But it is highly doubtful that resolving those problems will get any easier after the end of the war in Iraq. In fact, it could well become more difficult.
* * *
Kiichi Miyazawa, 83, was a member of the Japanese delegation to the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. After serving as secretary to then-Finance Minister Hayato Ikeda, Miyazawa entered politics in 1953 and served a string of heavyweight Cabinet posts before he became prime minister in 1991. He successfully passed into law a set of bills for Self-Defense Forces' participation in U.N.-led peacekeeping operations. Miyazawa is one of the most prominent doves within his party.(IHT/Asahi: April 2,2003)
And his take on the longstanding French strategy ("...it has been [France's] fundamental principle since Charles deGaulle that the bigger America grows, the more shackles France must put on it"] is about as "frank" an assessment as I've heard voiced on the matter.
I think Israel was the reason for Bush's decision. The suicide bombings paid for by Hussein's oil was driving Israel into a deep hole, psychology and economically. Sharon was getting to the point where the only option was the "Samson Option", the use of nuclear weapons. The only way Israel could stop the suicide bombings was to cut off the cash. The only way to cut off the cash was to get Hussein. The only way for Israel to get Hussein was with a nuclear strike on Baghdad.
Bush committed the US to a conventional war on Iraq in order to stop a nuclear war in the whole Middle East. I think it was the right thing to do for both Israel and the US.
No you moron, Bush was giving Hussein, "Fair Warning", a chance to save himself and avoid war on Saddam's "people". Hussein is the "fundamentalist" in this scenario. A fundamentalist sadistic, narcisstic, psychopath. This war is about one insane human being and the thugs around him. Nothing more.
What are the supposed penalties for violating sanctions?
We are at war with an entire region whose people have decided that killing innocent American civilians is an acceptable mode of dealing with their own problems. We were not attacked because of anger, though it surely exists, we were attacked because our reaction was not feared.
In order to take these people from lack of respect to respect, dire consequences must befall them in a manner in which there can be no mistake that further use of terror would not be beneficial.
For me, PREVENTION is exactly what this war will accomplish, none of us should be the least bit apologetic that our actions are by nature PUNITIVE, and without seizing any of the oil, the death of OPEC will most certainly be one of the consequences to the region, a consequence that I find quite fitting.
WE DID NOT START A WAR. WE (FINALLY) RESPONDED TO A SUSTAINED & QUITE HOSTILE IRAQI BREACH OF THE GULF WAR CEASE-FIRE.
YOUR POST:
What nonsense.
MY REPLY:
What, directly put, is that nonsense to which you refer?
MY POST: WE DID NOT START A WAR. WE (FINALLY) RESPONDED TO A SUSTAINED & QUITE HOSTILE IRAQI BREACH OF THE GULF WAR CEASE-FIRE.
YOUR POST: What nonsense.
MY REPLY: What, directly put, is that nonsense to which you refer?
OnMY REPLY ONCE AGAIN: What, directly put, is that nonsense to which you refer?
PAGING gchochran. PAGING gchochran. PAGING gchochran.
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.