5 Years After the Transatlantic Controversy over Iraq
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Sunday, March 23. 2008
Dialog International scans the German press coverage regarding the Iraq war anniversary and translates a Sueddeutsche Zeitung interview with Gunter Pleuger, Germany's ambassador to the United Nations during the run-up to the war. Pleuger speaks about his impressions of Colin Powell's presentation at the UN Security Council:
It was all very surreal. Most of us in the UN auditorium knew that what Powell was presenting had no basis in reality. But we couldn't imagine that Colin Powell would deliberately present falsehoods.
I beg to differ with Dialog International's the headline "Bush's War Enters its Sixth Year." It is America's war. A majority of Americans were in favor of the war in 2003. The United States is a democracy with various powerful branches of government and with a free press. Thus I would not blame the war on Bush only. Writing in Foreign Policy Magazine (subscribers only) Alasdair Roberts described Iraq as "The War We Deserve."
And Gerd at Anglofritz is fed up with the Iraq Blame Game, specifically US accusations of Germany regarding "Curveball." Related post in the Atlantic Review: Schadenfreude? How the Smearing of Iraq War Critics Has Changed
Endnote: Think Progress writes about a book by Chile's ambassador to the UN: U.S. ‘threatened’ countries that didn’t support Iraq war. (Link fixed)
Share on Facebook
Welcome! You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW -- a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations edited by three German Fulbright Alumni. The horizontal menu bar at the top helps to navigate this site.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter, which is emailed twice per month.Well, I remain amused by what, to me, seems an underlying assumption that there was a clear view provided by prewar intelligence from any source; particularly sources in Iraq itself. That the Iraqi regime was so dysfunctional that even high level contacts within the regime itself turned out to be inadequate sources is one possible conclusion of declassified portion of the US Joint Forces Command "Iraqi Perspectives Project" available in full here http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/pa032406.htm ,
and summarized in a nice article by Woods, Lacey, and Murray, "Saddams Delusions: View from the Inside", Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006 (subscriber only).
In February, 2003, well before the Iraq invasion, I made the case for it in an article, "The United States is already at war with Iraq".
Looking back, I severely underestimated how difficult the post-invasion phase would be, and worse, how poorly prepared we were for it. However, I still think the case stands up pretty well, since it relies on more than just WMD, and with regard to WMD, it relies on Saddam's WMD intentions, rather than his capabilities.
Even today, it is not clear that the world would be better off with Saddam in power.
A collapse of the pre-invasion coalition against Saddam could have weakened NATO, emboldened Russia and China, and created a great deal of trans-Atlantic tension. Worse, it almost certainly would have ushered in a new wave of domestic terror in Iraq, similar to the genocides Saddam inflicted when we left him in power in 1991. The evolution of Iraq from a secular, Stalinist state into an Islamist state, which began in earnest in 1991, would have accelerated. The stage would be set two very unpleasant alternatives: a second Iran-Iraq war with bio/chemical WMD on both sides, casualties in the millions, and the real possibility of Iran building and using nukes; or, a global, Iraq-sponsored bio/chem WMD terror campaign. Or possibly both...
Today, Iraq is far from stable, but the civil war forecast in 2005 has been avoided. Iraq could still, one day, become a Pakistan or even a Turkey; if this happens, it will have regional and global repercussions, and it will have been worth every bit of blood and treasure.
Even if that doesn't happen, at least we can say we tried.
Regarding WMD, the coalition was trivially correct. Prohibited components, some of recent origin, were indeed found in Iraq. A few legacy weapons were found, thus disproving the absurd position that Saddam "never had" WMD. More importantly, there was documentation that WMD programs had been maintained (in a dormant state) until shortly before the invasion, and were prepared to start up again as soon as the threat of invasion passed and sanctions were lifted. For evidence, read the Duelfer Report.
Most importantly, regarding ready-to-use WMD stockpiles, Bush, and the coalition, was tragically, horribly wrong.
Still, it is simplistic and not particularly helpful to treat the blunder as a 'lie'. Granted, we claimed to be certain about things that in fact were not certain, but that is more a gross failure in judgment than an outright lie. An outright lie would be what Clinton did -- he knew he had sexual relations with that woman (he was there, after all), but he stated otherwise. Whereas, no one seriously claims that Bush knew with certainty there were no stockpiles. Perhaps Bush should have known; but because Saddam frustrated the inspection process at every turn, the case that he had given the stockpiles up was just as circumstantial as the case that he had kept them.
To me it makes far more sense to treat the WMD stockpiles question not as a legal or analytical question (trying to discover the truth, which under the circumstances wasn't knowable) but rather, as an intelligence battle between opposing forces amidst the fog of a low-intensity (i.e. pre-invasion) war.
Regarding WMD, the true shame of the Bush administration, and the coalition, is that the combined efforts of CIA, NSA, Defense, State, MI-6, etc. where roundly defeated by a resource-starved, low-tech, isolated Baathist intelligence service handicapped by a dictator with delusions of grandeur.
Saddam's delusions were unfortunately strengthened by assurances from certain European and other powers that the coalition would never invade without a UN resolution; their incorrect assessment of the political mood of the coalition was a significant intelligence failure in its own right.
In a supreme irony, Saddam went to the gallows paranoid about a theoretical Iranian conflict and pronoid about a quite real coalition occupation.
The coalition bested Saddam on every front except intelligence. There he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. And yet failed in the end.
"about things that in fact were not certain, but that is more a gross failure in judgment than an outright lie. An outright lie would be what Clinton did -- he knew he had sexual relations with that woman (he was there, after all), but he stated otherwise."
Yeah, this failure in judgment costed ~ 500 billions dollars,4000 dead soldiers ; Clinton lie, only a cigar and a cleaning !
I like your parallelism. (Anyway, why is this obsession about the sex life of your political leaders ? it is also funny that most of the scandals are pointed on the liberal side, are the conservatives oenuqued ?)
Saddam was no threat to the western world, he was laïc ; the Iranian Shias wouldn't make the law there at the moment ; your are doing the good job, cleaning the Saddam clan, instruct shia guys in the police science... soon the iranian Shias will be ready to become the masters in Irak... may-be that's what is expected in the penthagonal back-yards, that's the great ME project that carries on(in the perspective of a "cold war" paranoïa scenario, that a Carter guru, Breszhinski, imagined), first remove the Shah in Iran, a laïc, put a psycho religious on his throne, then instigate a war between Iran, the new born religious state, against the laïc Irak (your country helped Saddam then with all the weapons that your actual administration repproached him to hide)
"Saddam's delusions were unfortunately strengthened by assurances from certain European and other powers that the coalition would never invade without a UN resolution; their incorrect assessment of the political mood of the coalition was a significant intelligence failure in its own right"
The real war against AQ was that one in Afghanistan ; If your country had put the maximum of the forces there, the rest of the western world would have been more enthousiastic ; and at the moment, Afghanistan would be clean, and you still would have enough forces to lauch onto Pakistan, cause the monsters of AQ hide there now.
Iran would not make all these "B serie" movies about the nuclear weapons, cause Saddam would still survey the borders...
Anyway, what is done is done, we must think to what ought to be done for the future, and, as western world countries, we are all concerned, it's not because we were not in the first casting (the scenario was really bad)that we should not participate in the following ones, and yes, this has become a civilisation war.
"(Y)our country helped Saddam then with all the weapons that your actual administration repproached him to hide."
As I read your statement, it's made in the context of the Iran-Iraq War. All other issues aside, this is a myth. Before and during the period of the Iran-Iraq war, the US provided virtually no arms at all. The reason is simple: Iraq the better part of the last half century was a client state of the Soviet Union and then Russia. Saddam's weaponry and that of Iraq generally for the last half century was provided overwhelmingly by east block countries with France as the principal western contributor. Here is the partial data, in percentages, from SIPRI:
'73-'79
Soviet Union 95.7%
France 4.0%
US 0.0%
'80-'82
Soviet Union 68.5%
France 20.6%
PRC 2.7%
US 0.0%
'83-'88
Soviet Union 57.8%
PRC 20.5%
France 13.2%
US 0.8%
The US provided 0.0% during '89-'90. And you can bet that the data from that point to the present would be the same.
For all that can be attributed to past US foreign policy, Saddamist-Iraq is not part of it. For that project look to the foreign policies of the Soviets/Russians and, to a lesser extent, France.
Good point. Even in the 1990-2004 conflicts, Iraqi equipment was mostly USSR design or copies of same; Iraqi army organizational structure and tactics were a carbon copy of the Soviet army and doctrine.
In the Iran-Iraq war, the we did provide intelligence to Iraq against Iran. Iran and Iraq were both using chemical WMD, but they weren't very competent. We may have given technical advice about how to employ chemical WMD against military formations more effectively. We also ignored good evidence that Iraq and possibly Iran too had used chemical WMD against civilian populations, including their own people.
Again, Frenchie, there is plenty we did wrong without making stuff up. But you can't help yourself, can you?
"Saddam was no threat to the western world..."
If he was no threat, why did the entire world, including the West, agree to remove him from Kuwait in 1990? Did Opération Daguet not exist?
Was France, dare I ask, wrong in 1990? Was France the US lapdog? Since both of those things are impossible, France's actions alone proves Saddam was a threat.
"...he was laïc"
If this Wikipedia article is correct, you've just bashed France horribly in the comparison to Baathist Iraq.
Surely elections in the French Republic are more credible than Saddam's famous propaganda exercise, in which 99% voter approval wasn't enough, upon review it was found to be 100%? Surely France no longer brutally represses her Protestants or other religious minorities?
Baathist Iraq was a secular, totalitarian dictatorship in the mode of Stalin. Not exactly a good thing, unless you happened to be one of the Baath elite.
However, starting in about 1987, Saddam began to re-invent himself as a modern-day Saladin. Subsequent events accelerated this trend. With the end of the USSR, Saddam no longer could rely on their economic, military, and diplomatic support. Furthermore, the Gulf War was a tremendous loss of face for him. He read the writing on the wall, and realized that secular pan-Arabism was dead, or dying, and that he would have to cut a deal with the new, emerging ideology, Islamism. He added "Allahu Akbar" to the flag, and began work on the infamous blood Koran. Saddam was not involved in 9/11, but in 2006, even some US Democrats admitted, Saddam had been collaborating with Al Qaeda, in minor ways, as early as 1995.
Well, there's more to be said about your other points, but it will have to wait for another post.
"It is America's war. A majority of Americans were in favor of the war in 2003."
Most Americans turned against the Iraq war once they realized they had been deceived about WMDs and the connection with Al-Qaeda and 9/11. That hasn't changed: two thirds of Americans believe the war was a mistake.
SC, yeah, your own sources of course !
US wash more white than white, irresistible :mrgreen:
Well, not really: SIPRI stands for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
FYI to all concerned. The SIPRI site is apparently updating their data base and not currently up and running. The data I noted above has been around for quite awhile though and can be found posted at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq
Also, the US Joint Forces Command "Iraqi Perspectives Project" is hardly a whitewash. Apart from trying to understand what the Iraqi government was thinking and doing from '89-'03, the project is part of a standard after-action assessment process undertaken after every significant conflict involving the US armed forces; a process to determine what went right and what didn't. If the US armed forces have improved qualitatively over the years - and really, that should be beyond debate. It is in no small part due to processes like that of which the IPP is a part: a whitewash would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. Those who wish the US ill would wish it were: then you would get an armed force qualitatively like that in Iraq.
Sc, then you should have taken your references from the very SIPRI site that you quoted ; since how long is Wikipedia a reliable source ?
"punish the Frenchs" ( ... and give a spanking to Germany) was the motto of your administration, lies propaganda were part of the program (and still are) that came in the frame of the fine team that lauched a war with no avered motives.
here, it says that no evidence was proven that France sold arms after the boycott ; before, yes, as did the US !
hehe, the Poles said they found french arms... ahah, at leat dated prior the embargo
John, yes I am the "poil à gratter" :lol:
eheh, digressions my dear :lol:
yes, dunno why Mitterand went into the first Irak war ;
Might be an empathy with Bush Senior there, and I suspect him to like the "ratonades" (kill the arabs in slang) ; hehe, when he was minister of the army in the fifties, it's him that lauched the acceleration of the Algeria war
though, when you digg in that first Irak war, it appears that saddam heard some voices suggesting him to invade Koweit, he, I wonder from which angels' sky though ; cause at that time Mr Saint-Chesney made quit a few travels to Irak ; Saddam was the Americans' ally ; he behaved ; he was still buying weapons and was no intended to refuse that little service to his dear uncle Sam. That was the motive of the "war" that Saddam served on a golden tray.
Why the Senior Bush administration changed her mind ?
a secret penthagonal plan dating from the Carter administration that still had to find a justification : yeah, elite Brains have been working so hard on it, all paid by the brave american tax-payors. Who is that Saddam ? a bloody dictator, fine, time to get rid of him...
' John, yes I am the "poil à gratter" '
More like Pepé Le Pew
Ok. But, as I wrote before, the numbers I cite have been around for quite some time now. I've had a bookmarked link to the SIPRI site's numbers for a long time for just such threads as this. You can choose to believe that or not; it matters not to me, because I know the numbers are there. Wikipedia was simply the most convenient reproduction. The Baathist regime in Iraq was simply a client of the Soviet Union: the arms transfer data is just one large indicator of this. France pursued its own mideast foreign policy and had its own reasons for its relationship with Saddam.
Here's a chart based on the SIPRI report but the actual report as you point out is unavailable till the 31st of this month.
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
One or two things come to mind when reconsidering US policy towards Irag during the 80's was that aside from Saddam there was no one else in the region that was capable of acting against the Iranians and that the documented $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Iraq during that period is dwarfed by the $11 billion given to Iran the previous decade. And regardless of the doom and gloom of the present regarding Iran it must be considered that US policy has been successful for the last 29 years in regards to keeping the Iranians militarily and politically weak and only able to harass the West and its neighbors in a few areas, ie., terrorism, subversion and the possibility of being in possession of nuclear arms.
We may indeed gain a somewhat reliable ally in Iraq but for the very near future the Iranians must deal with the idea that even an engaged US military still has tactical and strategic advantages over Iran and is essentially on the border. A state of affairs that did not exist before 2003.
There can be no 2003 missiles, since these missiles have not been made for 15 years
"Before the 1991 Gulf War, at least 20 countries were accused of involvement in building up the technological basis for different Iraqi weapons programs, in particular the chemical weapons program. In December 2002, the Iraqi government submitted a 12,000-page dossier to the UN [United Nations] naming companies from the UK, France, Russia, the USA and China as suppliers of weapons technology to Iraq. ... The dossier claims that 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons including nuclear and rocket technology and that some "50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US". ... Although most of the trade ended in 1991 at the outbreak of the Gulf War, Russia, China and reportedly Portugal traded arms with Iraq after 1991 in breach of UN resolutions"
Amnesty International
"U.S. weapons inspectors found no clear evidence" that French government officials were involved in or aware of those deals, and it is unclear whether reported offers from French companies to Iraq were ever consummated"
Washington post
"it was common knowledge that Iraq was able to bypass sanctions by buying in small quantities and paying high prices, using a network of front companies in Jordan, Syria and other countries in the Middle East." Washington Post
a guess, through the network, US might also have sold these small quantities ; it would not have been the first time, he, "iran gate" anyone ? the letter boxes and fake compagnies in cold war ; I can witness for such a compagnie in the eighties in Paris surburb
Franchie, I am curious, was Wikipedia correct about Laïcité?
john, there are many digressions and a caracterised BS as far as the paragraph that treats the french reality in scolarship ; did you provide yourself the english explanation ?
No, I didn't write anything on that Wikipedia page. As you can see from this, there have been no substantial changes in the month of March.
If you disagree with the entry, why don't you edit it yourself and correct all the BS? Or can you only create BS, not correct it?
John, now, I understand why the people like you think we stink ; it's was incrusted in your brain in your chilhood, thus indelebile ! good job, journalist ? I hope the "Sun" will give you a column !
SC, clever boy, we believe you
I wasn't suggesting French people are like Pepé Le Pew. I was suggesting your writing is like Pepé Le Pew. Pepé lives in Paris, all of his victims are other French people.
As to indelible childhood impressions, I have only met you recently.
John,
It wasn't clear expressed though
I had to choose between a few options, sorry, I pick up the more "used" on american sites that like to bash us
yes, I agree my vocabulary is quit like "pepe" 's, some kind of EU "charabia", hehe, Don would say Bullshittings :lol: ;
in a way I am the "proof" that there are "communications" between the EU countries :lol:
Really? Then why is it that a LT friend of mine ran across French special forces in the western desert of Iraq with very little HDRs and an lot of claymores 3 months after the fall of Baghdad?
They didn't say diddly-squat to him about where they were going, what they were up to, and why they were there, but they looked so sapped that he gave them as many cases of bottled water as he could spare and told them to stay out of his sector.
what are you up to jojo ? still frustrated not being the star ?
vraissemblablement you haven't watched a "pepe" video.
Pepe's "charabia" is a mixture of franco-italian expressions ltterally translated into american language ; the result is weird but fits greatly the cartoon agenda
WHat in heaven's name are you talking about? Tell you what: don't be an adolescent and call me "jojo", and I won't call you a petit branleur.
jojo,
your confusing, I am not "a petit branleur"
but "a petite branleuse", I can see I am good at the job :lol:
Bush is not the only one to be blamed. The meida like CNN and BBC spreads lots of rumors against Iraq. They succed to describe people that Sudam regime sponser the 911 and Bin Laden. And Iraq regime was embracing nuclear bomb in full swing. When the whole wolrd was confused by BBC and CNN's disinformation campaign . No wonder NY senator Hilary Clinton vote for Iraq war.
CNN and BBC always brag its independence and objectiveness. But their disgraceful behaviours poke the glorious bubble out and bankrupt their credits. They are standing on the moral highland and is not superior to the common people. Sometimes they are more dirty than we thought of them.
I'm more than a little concerned about the bona fides of Heraldo Munoz's book, A Solitary War. First in that a former member of the Allende government might and actually still does harbor much resentment toward the US. And second in that the chronology doesn't make much sense as Sec. Munoz was still acting as spokesman for the Lagos Administration in Chile, Minister Secretary General of Government, when Sec. Powell spoke and subsequently recommended to the President to not seek any further resolutions from the UN in Feb. 2003. Sec. Munoz did not arrive in New York to take up his ambassadorship until either the 18th or 19th, mere days before the invasion took place on March 20th. And the UN essentially abandoned the Iraqis barely a month later.
Plus Think Progress is hardly the most even handed on matters of politics or scholarship. what next quoting from the Drudge Report as an unbiased source of info on conservatives?
Five years ago , EU want to restrict US Military action in Iraq under the framework of UN security council's approval, They don't wanna see: US monopolize Iraq , then monopolize the whole middle east's resources in the name of promoting democracy,destrorying nuclear capability.
With the help of US and UK's impudent propaganda, the Bush administration successfully avoid moral charges for their unforgivable falsity. At that time Bush 's military invasion upon Iraq meet with applause in western wolrd ,with the exception of France and German who openly express their objection . France and German focus on their ecnomic and strategic interests instead of native Iraq people welfare.
US now re-evaluate the situation in IRAQ. they want to make sure whether Iraq policy is correct. What leads to this antagonistic action towards Bush administration is not almost half millions Iraq civilian people's death. The pressure against Bush government comes from the death toll of more than 4000 troopers. It is ridiculous that the congress leader ,Nancy Pelosi who is disguised as human rights pioneers only enumerate US expenditure and casualty in Iraq war. I don't know what was in her mind . Dose she really think that Iraq civilian people is inferior to US soldiers. People from Iraq, from Israel-occupied Palestine urgently want to see the old witch's kindness and supports.
I wonder how many western media care about the Iraq native people 's miserable life.How many media have the willing to probe what horrible things happend in Cuba Guantanamo prison. I don't think the so-called 5 years of transatlantic Controversy over Iraq is a big deal. When France and German 's interests was taken good care of by US, there will be no uproar afterwards. The dirty politician like Pelosi , Bush and their EU counterparts will gulp champagne cheering up transatlantic triumph.
only whining from IRaq and Palestine loomed somewhere .
The surge in violence in Iraq has now brought the toll of dead US troops to over 4,000.
"If I were slightly younger ... I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines. ... It must be exciting ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger." -- President Bush, March 13
That hobby horse must be just about worn out by now. Unless of course that is just what a "typical white person" would write about, ad nauseum.
Pat, did you light another candle on your shrine to George W. Bush? This is another "Mission Accomplished" moment in a failed presidency.
The waste of blood and treasure in this endless, unnecessary war is truly a tragedy - and this latest milestone is the lead story in every media outlet.
You soon find that David's "Dialog" is little more than one-sided and laced with underhanded invective. Note the allusions to "lighting candles at shrines" to someone he doesn't agree with as a sort of misguided religiosity, and so forth.
The notion that if you wanted to draw a line in the sand, that it should not be in central London or Manhattan is lost on people who resort to these argumantative tactics.
The notion that you can separate Syria from Iran, putting their underhanded activities in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, greater Cairo, etc on notice is lost on them. Or alternately, pacifying all of Iran's hostile neighbors as a potential entente, should they find themselves capable of it.
The idea of attracting onto a place all of those who want a piece of us, and fighting them with what we have - a military - as opposed to developing a gigantic intelligence establishment which weasterners are inherently supicious of is lost on them.
No. You get a pounding, pounding, pounding of the same things as if Pavlov's dog had been trained to sing about WMDs! WMDs! WMDs! or Abu Ghreib! Abu Ghreib! Abu Ghreib! in the same way you would get Hiroshima! Hiroshima! Hiroshima! without any connection with the underlying circumstances: i.e. European intelligence peddling the WMD story in the face of the fact that Saddam Hussein had actually used chemical weapons, that Abu Greib was a crime by the guardsmen on the nightshift and not a conspiracy, that Gitmo took people targeting Europe off of the hands of people who still don't want them back.
It's always the same. The excercise of their "wisdom" about peace is so cheap and easy to dispense, so easy to digest, and it has never, ever worked for civilization.
"It's always the same. The excercise of their "wisdom" about peace is so cheap and easy to dispense, so easy to digest, and it has never, ever worked for civilization"
stop whinning, or puting the fault on the "others", your living in our aeras, then get your ass moving and do act, I can't wait to watch what kind of courage you inherit from your ancestry. uh, don't choose the wrong masters
Bush government and EU are facing the problem of IRAN nuclear development. The enhanced transatlantic paternership will not guarantee Iran will yield to the pressure of the west .
I believe Iran Nuclear problem will not be solved by Iran's unilaterally giving up its attempt. What makes Iran so firmly embrace nuclear deterrence is US BLACKMAIL including nuclear bomb threat. US never forgive first nuclear strike against no nuclear states and threat to its enemies in different periods(during korean war, Vietnam war...etc)
US threat to bomb Iran for decades through different channel. It's very reasonable for Iran to promote its military strength. it was US instead of Iran who brazenly proclaim the preemptive military action agianst Iran after all. Western media ironically describe Iran as the evil state. BBC play the leading part in this affair. The notorious colonial state (British), peddling opium in Far east,trafficing Arab people into North and south America as salves, colonize almost half of the world . The islamic world give no damn to such evil country's state meida's propaganda.
US need to give up its hegemony towards other coutry. It should not base its national security on its military threat to others. monsterizing Iran will not validate president Bush's discriminating Middle-east policy. American people maybe need to think about this : why a bunch of Arab people drive planes to clash US facility without considering their own life. To label those guys as terrorists and describe them as feelingless is the most simple way. It can never solve the problem.
Again that claim is absolute nonsense, US nuclear policy has always been no first strike against non-nuclear states unless they use either one of the three categories of WMD, chemical, biological and nuclear(one doesn't need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear device). When was there any proclamation of a preemptive strike against Iran other than it was one among dozens of options still under consideration. Again provide some links instead of wild accusations and fairy tales.
Slavery existed in Africa and the Near and Middle East until those colonial occupiers the British put an end to the slave trade, via its West Africa Squadrons, which was largely conducted by Africans and Arabs.
As to the 9/11 terrorists one can only ask why the sons of the educated middle class would chose to advance their cause by murdering 3,000 others instead of using their talents to modernize their repective countries. An engineer that is a mass murderer has built no bridges, or skyscrapers or schools but is merely a pile of undifferentiated ash.
REF:
[Slavery existed in Africa and the Near and Middle East until those colonial occupiers the British put an end to the slave trade, via its West Africa Squadrons, which was largely conducted by Africans and Arabs. ]
Your response make me confused here. you mean Africans and Arabs people kidnap those black people(who was derogated as "negro")into north and south Africa . and Britain 's colonization is a kind of emancipation action. I guess nowadays Afican's poverty and its decades of civil war have nothing to do with UK's colonization . In that case , the Kashmir clash can only related to Inida or Pak's ambitions. Opium trade should prosper in Far East and elsewhere without moral condemning.
Since you got no moral criterion on Britain's once crime, Why you chicken at Islamic revenge like 911. considering these: Their prophet was defiled, their religion was distorted on purpose.
In my view ,both of them are shameful. The west should give Islamic world more understanding.That will make things better.Western world impartially treat Palestine and Israel will comfort Islamic world and avoid the radical strength prevail. Golrifying Britain and US will not solve any problem.
Yes, that is exactly what I said and that is what happened. The British, French and even the laggard US, though greatly benefiting from slavery also effectively ended it. Plus you might notice that most of the decades of civil war and stupidity in Africa occurred after the colonizers left.
So Al Qaeda attacked the US because of slavery? Then why didn't he attack Sudan and Saudi Arabia first? Slavery exists in those coutries if not de jure then definitely de facto. Plus I can only wonder how many former colonies in Africa the US had? The only country that the US had and has any real connection to is Liberia and the US has basically, aside from an occasional Marine rescue of American citizens, left alone.
No, the boogeyman in the Near and Middle East does not reside in the US but in the acceptance of its citizens in having corrupt and inept governments.
There are so many facts about Britain colonization ,and its salve trade. US also get involved in this dirty trade. So President Clinton express his appology during his Africa vists. If you got problem to know such tragic hitory
Go to Great Briton Meusums to find some proofs . more than 68% works(collections) are loots seized from its colonial states.
Britain's colonization and looting impoverish the poor continent(Africa). Britain's MORE THAN 200 HUNDREAD YEARS skyrocketing development drilled with African and aSIAN' PEOPLE'S BLOOD. Although it is not the only reason lead to Afica's povery and civil war, Britain still can not escape
from people's charges.
I know my request will not got response from UK. I still appeal Britain sincerely repent its crime and make compensation to African people at least return other country's treasures .
Pat Patterson,THERE ARE MILLIONS OF THREADS CONCERNING THIS TOPIC (WHAT colonization AND SLAVE TRADE MEANS TO THE OPPRESED AFRICAN AND aSIAN PEOPLE).
Please LOOK AT THIS :
During President Clinton's tour of Africa he apologised not once but twice: in Uganda he apologised for the slave trade; in Rwanda he apologised for western ...
www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,234216,00.html
------------------------------------------
BY THE WAY , PLEASE CONTACT Philippine to confirm who had ever colonize the Philippine state. Please contact US government Who had smear the American Indian as Barbaric and highly aggresive, who almost extinct American Indian cultrue and people. What American Indian reservation is , Is it something like a zoo for vistors sightseeing. does that show US compassion to the once master of the north America.
Slavery still exist in Mauritania, and in many other african and ME muslim countries ; but is is disguished in a nowaday language : maids
Bringing up The Philippines is quite interesting, agreed that the Spanish and to a lesser extent the US have much to answer for, but both countries must be blameless for brining slavery to that country, in fact the US must be blameless as slavery was officially abolished, rather then by decree under the Spanish, in that country's constitution after 1898. No the wholesale deportation of that country's original inhabitants, who are still discriminated against today, began when traders and missionaries from Malay and Moghul India arrived in the 13th Century.
Actually when reading the various reports regarding Pres. Clinton's African trip in 1998 the fact is that not once in his speeches did he apologize for slavery. He expressed regret concerning America's role in slavery while in Uganda, he said that the West should have done more during the African vs. African bloodletting in Rwanda(as to why he should apologize for Rwandans killing their fellow citizens is a mystery) and in Senegal had the good sense to simply talk about the US and the West's role in benefiting from slavery, but he also mentioned that the Africans and the Arabs should also study their own parts of that sorry sin.
In reference to Senegal; http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9804?02/clinton.africa/
Reference to Rwanda; htp://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/25/rwanda.clinton/
Reference to Uganda;http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E7DF1E38F936A15750C0A96E958260
I am I no way trying to mitigate the West's role in the spread of slavery to the New World but I also think that the West should be given credit for ending that "peculiar institution" while the rest of the African continent and the Arabian peninsulla and litoral kept its slaves and slave armies(the Mamelukes for example) for another 50 to 75 years. Except of course Sudan and Saudi Arabia which the UN has still identified as countries where slavery is still accepted as a legal state of affairs. But then maybe the ghosts of Gordon and Rhodes are whispering in the ears of Muslim despots and plutocrats that a little slavery is ok because the West made them do it.
Do i misunderstand your following messages?
[Slavery existed in Africa and the Near and Middle East until those colonial occupiers the British put an end to the slave trade, via its West Africa Squadrons, which was largely conducted by Africans and Arabs. ]
It transfer totally different meaning to me. I still can not accept that Africa people kidnap their brethren and ship them to distant North and Sourth America. would you mind prompting me when the African black first settle down(he he...) in the new continent. I guess these African people are not attacted by latin America's spectacular landscape and voluntarily stay there as slave.
I believe the first African and white slaves were brought to Jamestown in the early 17th Century while slavery already existed in Brazil, Mexico and the West Indies since the discovery of the New World. And before the arrival of the Spanish and Portuguese as Cortez's army that conguered Mexico consisted of a few hundred Peninsulares and tens of thousands of indigenous residents desiring to end being slaves to the Aztecs.
I guess the question is who do you think brought the Africans to the coast for transhipment to the West? Aliens from Mars or rather their fellow African and Arab slavers. Again the West benefited by slavery, as did the Ottomans and the Egyptians, but it was the moral outrage of the West that ended slavery by the sword, cannon and hanging of slavers wherever and whoever they were.
Merkel: by the way, why not look at the history of Dutch slavery. They were in fdact the first to bring slaves to north america, and in fact it wasn't made illegal in the Netherlands itself until the Nazi occupiers expunged it from their laws as a formality.
I am not a German. My posts are not a German guy leash out fires on Britain. So there is no need for me to crticize or defend Dutch's once crime.I use the account "Merkel" because i dislike this woman. Under differnt circumstance I air my discontentment towards chancellor Merkel and her government.
I sigle out the Great Britain to anatomy pad on my own accounts:
1.I can not accept Britain 's arrogance towards heads of the African states. UK does not fit for the role of moral judge. Britain have lots of experiences in plundering, abeting African tribes clashes.Until Britain government offically make apology and make compensation to victim African states, It have no say on HUMAN RIGHTS and GOOD Governance.
2.UK deliberately escape its obligation (based on colonization history) to African people. UK use violence illeagally occupy Falkland Islands. It suppress north ireland people and refuse referendum on north ireland and Argentina's Malvinas(Falkland ).
3.UK Media like BBC ,Reuters make lots of lies. It carry out disinformation campaign on its enemies without considering journalists' principle of objectiveness and impartiality.
Jeez, the fun never stops. The Falklands Constitution of 1985 was approved by a vote of the citizens of the Falklands after presentation by the High Privy Council of the UK and the Falklands Council to the people of the Falklands then the Parliament and the Queen.
While the people of Northern Ireland held a referendum in 1998 that overwhelmingly approved the Good Friday Agreement by both the Protestant and the Catholic majorities. This agreement allowed for power sharing in the new Irish Assembly that is very akin to the Home Rule of the Irish Free State in 1922 though with British troops essentially withdrawn and only a token force of 5,000 left.
Which African kleptocrat have the British insulted that didn't deserve to be insulted? Mugabe, Mbeki or Taylor? There are actually quite a few African nations that have not adopted the pity me routine and are actually trying to provide the same basis for advancement that the West has discovered. Open and honest government, rule of law, religious toleration, respect for private property and the adoption of some free market principles that would allow some of those developing nations to put their subsistence hell behind them.
I can't help noticing that no one has directly refuted my posting that the Iraq war began in 1990-1 and continued to the present day.
A few posters have talked about the coalition and civilian casualties during the 2003-2008 period, but no-one has compared them to the civilian casualties during the 1992-2002 period, which were quite high.
Changing tactics from containment to regime change certainly increased the number of coalition casualties, and it increased the financial cost.
But, it may well turn out that the coalition invasion, brief formal occupation, and subsequent operations in support of the new Iraqi government, killed fewer Iraqis than did sanctions, on a per-year basis.
Anyone care to make the case that continued containment would have caused fewer Iraqi civilian casualties than regime change?
Please include the source(s) for any figures you cite, otherwise the debate becomes meaningless.
Falklands Election is anything but a joke. How can a local government which pledges its loyalty to Queen held a fair election. Queen dispatch her governor and military force managing Falklands . The election is by no means carried out free will voters.
UK play such dirty game in it colonial states. Using legal procedure to disguise its immoral and illegal contents. According to UK and its colonial states contracts ,Uk can lawfully go on with its colonial ruling. I guess only media like BBC or Reuter will advocate its in justice.
Now we have truly entered the twilight zone! If an election doesn't go the way you want then it most be corrupt. Or better yet what is surprising that British subjects wish to remain with access to the EU trading bloc instead of being tied to another desperately incompetent Argentinian government. Why would the islands residents want to become part of a country that has barely half the GDP per capita as the Falklands($13,000 for Argentina and $25,000 for the Falklands). Plus over the last decade the Falklands has a balanced budget and stable currency of which Argentina knows about only via Wikipedia.
The Queen chose a Governor recommended by Parliament but actually picked by PM Thatcher and currently PM Brown. While it is Parlaiment by a majority vote sent a British armada thousands of miles away to rescue the residents of the Falklands. While the dictatorship of Galtieri and Viola with no vote sent and then abandoned to the Falklands.
But is indicative of the feelings of the residents of the Flaklands that Argentina offered citizenship to any of the islanders who requested it yet out of the 3,000 plus inhabitants none took up Alfonsin's offer.
It's very interesting the cursed robber (Britain) is decribed as a benign gentleman by you. While the oppressed country - Argentina was defiled as a autarchy. AS far as i know Argentina government's policy on Flaklands' sovereign had earn full supports from its people .
The history tell us Flaklands does not belong to Britain. A coutry which is almost 10 thousand miles away claim its sovereign on this land. It sounds very unreasonable .
The fact is : UK illegally occupied this land by violence. UK can not validate its colonial action by the so called "Falklands Constitution" promulgated by UK governor .
If Uk really thinks they are lawfully possess Flaklands . Why they reject Organización de los Estados Americanos 's mediation and independent investigation. Almost all Latin America states and most of developing country support Argenrina's allegation. While most of wester powers stand on UK's side. Pat, I guess Argenrina's possible dictatorship have nothing to do with its sovereign
claim on Flaklands.
Western Powers always apply two different set of standards. I can imagine what will western media say if the recent france's racist clashes happened in a country like China,Russia,Venezuela...
I guess when one is confused on the facts its easy to simply see some things that are not there. Where have I mentioned anything about Britain being benign? Especially considering the original retakeover of the islands came about after Argentina abandoned its settlements there in the 1830's after a mutiny of those inhabitants.
The sorry and sad state of affairs is that Argentina, by launching an attack on territory that was in dispute and in violation of UN Resolution 1514, has lost all moral, legal and physical claim on the islands. With the discovery of oil and the construction of HMRAF Mount Pleasant the only way Argentina or its citizens are going to get onto the island are as tourists or represenatatives of meat packing plants. But tub thumping is popular with every weak government to draw attention away from its own problems.
Or it could simply revert back to the Dutch who were the first to discover the unoccupied islands in 1600. But since Argentina bases its claim on the Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided the New World solely between Spain and Portugal and gave both those countries the right to convert or kill any heretics then by all means persist in the fantasy.
[Pat Patterson - #13 - 2008-03-25 06:28 - (Reply)
Again that claim is absolute nonsense, US nuclear policy has always been no first strike against non-nuclear states unless they use either one of the three categories of WMD, chemical, biological and nuclear(one doesn't need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear device). When was there any proclamation of a preemptive strike against Iran other than it was one among dozens of options still under consideration. Again provide some links instead of wild accusations and fairy tales.]
Comment:
I only enumerate US Nuclear BOMB Blackmail in Korea war, Vietnam War and meet with your over-reaction hereinafter. I guess if i mention the current threat of nuclear attack against IRAN from high profile Pentagon officals . I will be labeled by somebody as a terrorist or terrorists' sponser and advocator.
You wanna truth about it . Here you go! the naked truth you can not afford it.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/File/pdf/timeline_of_nuclear_threats.pdf
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/China/Nuclear/index.html
China's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons program came in response to nuclear threats by the United States. In July 1950, at the very beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered 10 nuclear configured B-29s to the Pacific, and "he warned China that the U.S. would take 'whatever steps are necessary' to stop Chinese intervention and that the use of nuclear weapons 'had been under active consideration.'" In 1952, President-elect Eisenhower publicly hinted that he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons against China if the Korean War armistice talks continued to stagnate. In 1954, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command General Curtis LeMay stated his support for the use of nuclear weapons if China resumed fighting in Korea. LeMay stated, "There are no suitable strategic air targets in Korea. However, I would drop a few bombs in proper places like China, Manchuria and Southeastern Russia. In those 'poker games,' such as Korea and Indo-China, we...have never raised the ante--we have always just called the bet. We ought to try raising sometime." Finally, in January 1955, U.S. Navy Admiral Radford also publicly advocated the use of nuclear weapons if China invaded South Korea.
Transatlantic relationship is really so important? Yes! EU and US mutually need. does the 5 years of Transatlantic-Controversy exert much negative impacts ? No,
As those brazen british politician said.There is no forever friends , only perpetual interests do exist. Common interests will propelling the Transatlantic partnership. well some self interests collision will hinder its development. So there is no need to be pessimistic on Transatlantic relationship .
I fell so interesting some EU citizens mourn to BUSH's incoming departure here and there . But WHat the Yankee is up to? Check this :
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/bg2109.cfm
Under Chancellor Merkel's personal leadership, the European Union breathed life back into the rejected European Constitution, recasting it as the Reform Treaty.It still contains the building blocks of a United States of Europe and will shift power from the member states of the EU to Brussels in critical areas of policymaking, including defense, security, and energy--areas in which the United States finds more traction on a bilateral basis. The treaty is a blueprint for restricting the sovereign right of EU member states to determine their own foreign policies, and it poses a unique threat to the British- American Special Relationship.
Above all, the treaty underscores the EU's ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.
....
****************************************
What the United States Should Do
****************************************
In its policy toward Europe, the U.S. should:
1. Avoid any tacit, public, or diplomatic endorsement of the European Reform Treaty. U.S. leaders and diplomats at all levels must not give EU members or EU elites the impression-- in public or in private--that the U.S. supports further European integration.
Understand that the Lisbon Treaty is a political process intended to realize a United States of Europe. This treaty is not about the functioning of the European Union, but rather an evolution of political integration. The U.S. must abandon the long-held view that the European Union is a valuable global partner.
2.Recognize that further European integration and the relentless and unstinting drive behind ever closer union threatens U.S. strategic interests. Congress should hold hearings to analyze the Lisbon Treaty's implications for the transatlantic alliance.
Explicitly state that building enduring bilateral alliances is a U.S. foreign policy priority. The Administration should build bridges between peoples by facilitating safe and secure travel by implementing legislation passed in 2007 to reform and expand the Visa Waiver Program. Congress and the Administration should encourage commercial and political interchange between America and its friends and allies on a bilateral basis as an important foreign policy priority.
Work with key European allies, especially the United Kingdom, to reaffirm NATO as the cornerstone of transatlantic security and to ensure that the Bucharest Summit in early April is successful in putting NATO once again at the forefront of the transatlantic alliance. At the Bucharest Summit, the United States should specifically reaffirm the minimum benchmark for NATO members' defense spending (2 percent of GDP). It should also make the Allied Command Transformation Initiative the primary agent in determining members' military transformations. The Administration should make clear both that the U.S. will not back the ESDP as the price for French re-admittance into NATO's military command structure and that re-admittance will impose certain obligations on France.
Support calls for the United Kingdom and other European Union member states to hold referenda on the Lisbon Treaty as part of the ratification process. In line with the Labour Party's commitment and as part of a strategy to reinvigorate public trust in government, Prime Minister Gordon Brown should undertake a free and fair referendum in the United Kingdom.
***********************
With US instruction on EU's evolution. With the Judas of UK devastating activity within EU, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel will never achieve its goals . Being an insignificant servitor instead of an equal partner is a pathetic and unavoidable fate for EU. No matter Clinton ,BUsh or whoever. There is no big difference. US will never and ever compromise on its hegemmony.
Pat Patterson - #25.1 - 2008-03-27
[The Unted States reafirms that it will not used nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United Staes, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment,
carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."]
*****************************************
Comments:
According to US announcement,
1.US reserve the rights using nuclear bomb against those non-nuclear-weapon States who had not signed the NPT .
2.US facility in Yemen and Suddan was attacked , So US got lawful rights using nuclear bomb to revenge them. Considering this : US government does not
regard the attack towards US embassy in Suddan as a terrorist action. It link the whole thing to Suddan Government . In response US air force bomb the
africa state. destroy a chemical plant which was described as the venue for mass destruction weapons.
For god sake ,Bill Clinton didn't push that A-BOMB button. The bomb serve no purpose to convince people that Suddan Government is the culprit of US embassy expolsion.
on the countrary such military operation leaves only wreckage and civilian corpses. Clinton government confess it is a mistake
and agreed to make compensation. But Suddan Government reject US suggestion. It leave this relic as it were. As a reminder of the western powers' colonization and US's
hegemony against their people never ends.
3.Any one read such ambigous words as " any other attack " will get confused, What will US react when it meet challenges from Iran ,Iraq, Afghan,Syrian.
Saudi Arabia,North Korea,Cuba. If US want , the so-called US commitments will survive these coutries from nuclear revenge. Afghan is small state having no value
to test US A-BOMB's politic and military impacts. If the coutry is more bigger and tougher, may be millions of civilian Afghanistan people will also become the victims of 911 events.
Venezuela nationalize its resources from US companies while Exxon Mobil think Venezuela Gov. plundering US assets, will this Latin America country face US nuclear bomb? We can not found
answer from US nuclear policy. No need to thoroughly analyze Venezuela 's case , we can draw a conclusion that Venezuela have no capability to bring great casualty, US conventional strength will
handle it without any problem.
4. According to the following statements, US reserve the rights to nuke all the country she regards as hostile regimes. Even the nuclear power ,Russia and China is included.
"attack on the United Staes, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies,or on a State towards which it has a security commitment"
"carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."
It seems there are no high(strict) threshold for US to decide using Nuclear Power or conventional strength. Pentagon official enjoy this kind of ambiguity. They can
easily vent their hawkish words. What make things worse is : the neo-conservative strength advocate pre-emptive strike on states which were labeled hostile to US.
***********************
All this things make US Nuclear power 's policy very unconvincing,unreliable ,unverifiable.
By the way , Paterson , I need to inform you that US is the major power who reject comprehensively and totally denunciation of Nuclear weapons. US is the only
obstacle in anti-weaponization of outer space.
I would suggest that you might want to find the US's statement in a language that you might understand. The NPT comment expressly lays out that the US will only respond with nuclear weapons if first attacked by nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Plus there are 192 nations in the UN and 189 signatories of the NPT so that leaves only outside of the guarantees of the NPT.
Since Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and the US all have nuclear weapons the claim that only the US has not renouced their usage seems a little hollow. Plus I seem to remember that the Chinese sent a missile with an explosive warhead into space and destroyed a satellite indicates that maybe the US is not in the forefront of building Death Stars that will orbit at the Equator. And since there have been no attacks by the US, though several close calls, that would indicate that US policy has been succesful in spite of several strong advocations of their use. And the mere possibility of their use has served the US and the world as there was no outbreak of a new world war over the Berlin Wall, Prague Spring, the Chinese shelling of Quemoy and Matsu or the thousands of Chinese tourists visiting Korea in the 1950's. Threats, unfortunately, often work!
Those blatant threats (including nuclear bomb threat) were called "blackmail" by many developing countries . Using violence and threat to attain its goal is hegemony. Considerind US double-standards and hypocritical conducts, I guess there is no other choice for those "hostile" countries to promte its military strength.
Pentagon's dirty game only benfits itself with the expense of world peace. US make the whole things (like security issues) complicated and deteriorating as President Putin said.
Pat:
I would suggest that you might want to find the US's statement in a language that you might understand.
Comment:
My response to your posts does not derail our arguements. I guess I have clearly answer your questiones why US nuclear policy is so ambigous ,why Pentagon officials is so apt to making A-BOMB threats.
I had provided you with President Trumen and President Eisenhower 's nuclear bomb threats. and Several high profile military officers' hawkish Nuclear bomb threats. I understand why you neglect all these facts and insisting that US never threat using A-bomb against non-nuclear states.
If US nuclear policy you cited in you post is totally different from US government's official position and you can not explain for your "citation", I will not embarrass you by continuing such topic.
As to weaponization in outer space, US set a very bad example. It make threats to attack all the hostile countries' space assets (establishments) if needed. China destroied its disabled meteorology satellite to test its capacity to safeguard its assets in outer space. if US agree to sign the denunciation clause on weaponization of outer space, China and Russia will not hesitate giving up its space-weapon tests.
[ For example, the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure.”
Here is the link to the article on NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22french.html]
Reply to hope:
Dharamsala's so-called "exiled Government" is not a reliable source. Their false information had made western media so embarassed. How can these western media convince public their ludicrous wrong-doing owing to their carelessness,stupidity.
Alex:
March 31st, 2008 at 18:16 pm
List of western mistakes and crimes is not an evidence against the Chinese crimes in Tibet!
Remember: the CNN mistakes combined with aggressive communist propaganda and secrecy will not deceive people about the criminal policy of the Chinese communists in the occupied Tibet! Too many proved facts.
From Russia with love,Alex
Comment:
Glad to hear the voice from Russia. I agree with you on Western media's prejudice. Terrorist actions against innocent people will lead to different reaction from Western world. If the violence is against Chinese or Russian citizens , then it is not a problem. If it happend in Belfast, North Ireland,or Parisian suburbs.even excessive violence excersied by France police, there is no echo from BBC ,CNN appealling France government for restraint in violence exertion.
Western media's hypocrisy make its reputation deformed in China, Russia and many many developing countries. It ought to play a greater role in promoting China's human rights. People get to know media no matter owned by Chinese government or western powers , all have its own interests.To some extent, they all tailor facts to fit their minds.
Nicolas Sarkozy "skum" the Muslim youth. He indulges in violence to retore Paris peace. Never think about why the whole tragedy happend in France again and again .Nicolas Sarkozy has an picky eye on fashion models but short of political wisdom. He make France mess as its personal life looks like.
Except:
I think your missing all the info out here on these issues right now. THe problem in france is not right wing islamic militants. Its minorities who are being discriminated against and face racism on a daily basis. The poor of the poor here. There treated like skum. If you would take a minute to read any of the "middle of the path" media out there, you'd see this information also. Try reading jackass.
Secondly, how are they supporting them. From the way i read it, there simply telling the story from the perspective of the people who live in those poor suburbs and trying to explain how what started as a peaceful assembly turned into a violent one.
Comment:
I'll give you the point of view from Chinese side to balance your minds which is full of western media propaganda. I don't want you totally agree with my points hereinafter.
www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm - 248k
India’s China War by Neville Maxwell-
While the Sino-Indian border dispute halted, China proceeded to negotiate boundary ...... When the world learned on November 21, 1962, the border war in the ...
Comment:
Sino-India border war is another legacy from Britain colonization comparable to Kashmir disputes between India and Pakistan. I need to prompt Paterson that Republic of China (insead of PRC China) is the legal government of China at that time. Republic of China did not authorize Tibet local government to take part in the negotiation with British India . The agreement between British India and Tibet local government was sent to ROC central government for approval. Republic of China central government totally reject the agreement. Check britain government 's documents to see whether they recognize Tibet as an independent state. Since not approved , Inida's claim on “McMahon Line” is baseless. He can not inherit British India government's unfulfilled "inheritance".
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
www.centurychina.com/plaboard/uploads/1962war.htm
The roots of the Border War extend back into the 19th
Century, when both China and British India asserted claims
to desolate, remote mountain areas between China and India.
Military expeditions, intrigue and unproductive diplomatic
exchanges marked decades of relations between the two coun-
tries. Rather than resolving the border issue, Chinese and
British Indian actions only set the stage for conflict.
Major changes in the governments of both China and
India in the late 1940s had brought the two countries to
friendly relations in the early 1950s. The paper examines
how "intrusions"--strategic military projections into each
others claimed territory--again created conflict over the
disputed border areas. The key issue was the 1956-57
construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed
territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet. India protested the Chinese "incursion"; diplomatic exchanges continued for three years without progress or compromise. Each side firmly asserted its claim to the Aksai Chin area. Large sections of the North East Frontier Agency, east of Tibet, were also in dispute. In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations between India and China. The 1961 Indian invasion of Portugese Goa further alarmed Chinese officials in Peking.
(continued...)
Your comment was successfully added.
Warning: This comment needs approval before it will be displayed
Would you like to read more?
Have a look at our directory of Atlantic Review posts.
Or check out the constantly updated reading recommendations from our readers in the sidebar: "Tips From Our Readers."
More information on this project in this post. Feel free to comment on any article recommended in the sidebar.
BBCode format allowed. You can make a clickable link with this code:
If you write "[url=http://america-germany.atlanticreview.org]Carnival of US-German Relations[/url]", then this will be displayed: "Carnival of US-German Relations".
And if you write "[url]http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html[/url]", then this will be displayed: "http://atlanticreview.org/mustreads.html"
