Consequences
Patrick Nielsen Hayden (the SF editor) links to an excellent story in Slate on the long-term consequences of this war, which contrasts our dubious immediate fears (terrorists will attack right this minute) with some more sensible long-term ones (teenagers will be inspired to terrorism by America's actions, and attack in 10 or 20 years time, as al-Qaeda was partly motivated by the first Gulf War).
Seen on an Israeli news site while trawling for info: ads promoting NZ as a safe haven.
The Final Countdown
So here I am in my office, waiting as the final hours tick away before the Americans unleash hell on Iraq. Being on a LAN is good, because I can stream video from the BBC straight to my desktop. Unfortunately, everyone else in the world is doing the same, and the result is pretty disjointed and jumpy. And I expect it'll only get worse as 1pm approaches. Will the internet be the first casualty of Bush's war?
I'm still convinced that what America intends to do is both immoral and a mistake, but at this stage all I can do is hope for the best - that they don't kill too many people, and that they actually try and make a proper job of rebuilding Iraq, rather than just installing a patsy and walking away like they've done with Afghanistan. At the same time, I also hope that they pay for what they're doing - that Saddam blows his wells, or contaminates them with radioactives so that Cheney doesn't get his oil, that things go wrong and the US takes heavy casualties, even that Saddam uses whatever WMDs he may have because he's backed into a corner and has nothing to lose. That's mostly pure spite talking, but also fear that the Americans will get a taste for this sort of hegemonic exercise, and a recognition that the only thing that might turn them from that path is lots of dead Americans.
That's an unpleasant thought, and its kindof depressing that Bush can make me hope for Americans in body bags...
SARS Watch
The three people admitted to Middlemore hospital in Auckland have turned out to be another false alarm. Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation has been posting daily updates tracking the disease. Today's news: it's probably not flu, and not as infectious as they first thought. Phew.
US names 'coalition of the willing'
The US has named 30 countries which are prepared to be publicly associated with their action against Iraq. Of course, only two of them (Australia and the UK) are contributing troops, but others are providing bases, flyover rights, or just saying "yeah we're on the team" in the hope of a future payoff.
The list itself reads like a Who's Who of who's unimportant. Several are prospective NATO members, who fear a US veto of their membership (instead, they'll now be fearing a combined French-German veto of their entry into the EU). Notably absent are traditional US allies like Canada, Norway, Belgium, France and Germany - countries who share a great many of America's values (and certainly a lot more than, say, Uzbekistan), and who you'd expect to support action that was in accordance with those values. Their absence should mean something to the US, but it doesn't seem to.
As a tie-in, lots of people in the left blogo-hemisphere have been commenting on this week's cover story in Newsweek: The arrogant empire: why America scares the world. There's a lot of good stuff in this article, but the conclusion is particularly relevant to the above:
But the larger lesson [from the Turkish vote] is surely that in an increasingly democratic world American power must be seen as legitimate not only by other governments but by their people. Does America really want a world in which it gets its way in the face of constant public anger only by twisting arms, offering bribes and allying with dictators?There are many specific ways for the United States to rebuild its relations with the world. [...] above all, it must make the world comfortable with its power by leading through consensus. America’s special role in the world—its ability to buck history—is based not simply on its great strength, but on a global faith that this power is legitimate.
In 1991, the world had faith in the legitimacy of American leadership; Bush Sr's coalition to free Kuwait enjoyed near universal approval, and over 40 countries contributed militarily to it while others picked up the bulk of the bill. Now, Bush Jr seems to be doing everything he possibly can to destroy that faith, and the result is that noone is willing to help. The sad thing is that Americans will probably just dismiss this as another example of foreign ingratitude (similar to our abject failure to offer them blow jobs for "saving us" from nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis), rather than seeing it as a very real problem for the future.
SARS Watch
People are getting jumpy. Suspected cases are now being reported in Australia, the US and Canada. And tonight's One Late Edition had some footage of Ministry of Health officials in blue biohazard suits crawling all over a plane at Wellington airport, trying to decide what to do with two passangers displaying symptoms (turned out that it was probably jet-lag). Are we all nervous yet?
English backs the US
After calling for the SAS to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, Bill English has changed tack and now says that we should back our traditional allies. They're attacking Iraq, and so we should go along for the ride. For some reason, this makes me think back to primary school, when teachers would say things like "if they jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?"
Quite apart from the moral issue, National's position goes against the grain of the our entire foreign policy for the last two decades. Post WWII, the central theme of our foreign policy has been support for multilateral institutions and international law. We've been strong supporters of the UN, and more recently of GATT and the WTO, because we think that as a small country we need a strong framework of international laws and agreements to protect our interests. Likewise, we've been strong advocates of collective security, both through arrangements with our traditional allies (ANZUS; the Five Power Defence Arrangement) and through contributing to UN peacekeeping. While we traditionally toed the line set by the US, for the past twenty years we've been pursuing a more independent (but still very much multilateral and internationalist) foreign policy, because those traditional allies told us they wouldn't play with us anymore if we didn't accept their nuclear ships and weapons.
Given this historical multilateralist stance, why the hell would we want to throw our lot in with the Axis of Poodle? Collective security? But where is the threat? The only people who think Saddam is a danger to anyone other than his own people are Bush and his flunkies; his neighbours aren't concerned, so why should we be? Freeing the oppressed Iraqi people? A worthy goal, but isn't there a better way to do it? Do we have to bomb the Iraqi people in order to save them, or destroy the UN in order to save it?
Really, the only reason I can see for Bill English coming out in support of the US is that he's afraid that if he doesn't, Gerry Brownlee will. And that's hardly a good reason for ignoring our long-term interests and goals.
(With fond memories of Mr Ash and 5th-form history class)
What to do when it starts
In Britain, anti-war protesters are planning walk-outs; in the US they're going for civil disobediance and trying to shut down city centers. Since our government is actually listening to its people, and isn't involved, none of that really seems appropriate - instead, there are plans for some sort of vigil / protest on the day the war starts. In Christchurch, people are meeting at 5:30 pm in Cathedral Square; in Wellington at 5:00 pm at the Cenotaph. It won't change a damn thing, but it might make you feel better.
Bush's speech
Pretty much what was expected - call Saddam an evil dictator who "hates America", call the UN a bunch of spineless wimps, assert America's sovereignty, and give Saddam and co 48 hours to leave Iraq or they'll level the place. Interesting bits:
The American public is now expected to do their herd thing and Unite Behind the President...
A dreadful silence
The web is quiet this morning. It looks like everyone is waiting to see what Bush will say in his 1pm address. I'll try and watch it upstairs, and probably rant about it later.
But then again, what's the point?
Weirdness continues
We've just had our first ever hit from Google. The search terms? moustache laws in iraq.
SARS Watch
The BBC has reported the first suspected case in the UK. Meanwhile, when I woke up this morning, some appalling breakfast radio station was promising hints on how to make your home safe from "biological warfare". Anyone thinking of taking their advice seriously may want to read this story first.
On a lighter note...
According to the BBC, The 19th annual World Championship Pooh-sticks race has taken place in Oxfordshire. They have results and everything. And the Aussies won the teams competition.
I wonder if Disney will sue them for undermining their movie IP?
Found while reading NZpundit: a quiz to compute your balance of bodily humours:
Which Humor
Troubles the Disposition of YOUR Body?
I'm not sure that the above is an accurate description of me, but it might apply to some of my roleplaying characters :).
(Those who want to venture onto NZPundit are advised to hold their nose - he reminds me of that newsgroup troll Redbaiter. And for some reason he opens links in a subframe, keeping his URL at the top, rather than giving them the whole or a new window.)
Waiting for the miracle...
The Dominion-Post's headline this morning is that only a miracle can prevent war. So I guess those of you of a religious bent should pray that god will finally strike down Bush and half his cabinet with lightning, Cthulhu will rend them with tentacles, or that some looney will gun them all down or something.
Meanwhile, the NZ Police are apparantly receiving riot training to prepare them for "civil unrest, targeted protests, riots and terrorist acts". Yeah, way to go guys - at a time when dissent is actually important, you get ready to supress it. Fantastic.
And in the really scary box, I've been following reports from the British media about an outbreak of a highly infectious, mystery virus which is spreading from Hong Kong and Singapore. So far its only killed 150 people, but according to WHO it could get a lot worse:
People are not responding to antibiotics or antivirals. It's a highly contagious disease and it's moving around by jet. It's bad.
Having read about the 1918 Influenza pandemic this is indeed bad. Unless they get a grip on it, it could easily spiral out of control and become the next global pandemic.
Hmmm... maybe that's our miracle right there.
New Fisk!
The war of misinformation has begun. He's more on form this time, especially in the "weasel words to watch for" section.
Some interesting articles from Common Dreams
Andrew Greeley: War is not the Smart Option
Molly Ivins: Ticking everyone off
Joe Conason: Iraq's Nuke Threat Little More Than Myth
America plays hardball
"With a showdown looming at the UN Security Council, U.S. officials are warning darkly of consequences for those countries that oppose the world's sole remaining superpower."
Story here
