The War in Iraq is illegal. Millions of people marched against it.
But by definition the Nato action in the former Yugoslavia was illegal. It had no UN mandate.
So why were there so few complaints?
Point for discussion?
Oh and Spadgers Chirps is now open for business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That is an interesting point, hmm. Maybe, it is partly because of the focus of the war. We were told there would be WMD in Iraq, but not many people ever believed that, and that war has always been seen as an oil motivated invasion by large numbers of protesters. On the other hand, the war in the former Yugoslavia was about removing an oppressive leader, and protecting vulnerable people - and by the time it happened we had been watching the situation unfold for nearly ten years, most people felt 'something should be done'.
Maybe if more coverage had been given to incidents such as, the gassing of the Kurds, people would have felt differently about the war in Iraq. Or maybe not. After all, it's a long way away on another continent, I think it is easier for people to say 'oh dear' and then forget about it, than they would with a situation that is on our doorstep.
There were fewer complaints because the US didnt lead the way. It really is that simple. Pure, kneejerk anti-americanism.
Actually the US did lead the way, most notably the former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Allbright, but she was backed by then president Bill Clinton.
However, I do agree that there is an element of anti-Americanism amongst the objections, but I think that this is mainly due to the distrust and dislike many people feel towards Bush. In a sense it's as much a case of anti-Bushism. Since his election there has been a rise in anti-American feelng - American friends in the UK say they have experienced ill feeling in a way they never did 7 or 8 years ago.
Ground troops tended to be mainly from EU countries at the time, rather than American, plus some Canadians. There was no US face to the intervention as such, and also I suppose this was a documented ethnically oriented war which even the most 'anti-interventionist' types couldnt ignore. Whereas in Iraq Hussein's genocide was not a constantly documented matter of record in the same way.
And yes you are right, the WMD focus was foolish when Saddam had the better part of a year to simply ship them over the border, go figure there werent any left...
Yes, it is true the fighting force was predominantly European - off the top of my head the first to go in were the Ghurkas (ok they are not from Europe but they are part of the British army) and the Irish Rangers. An American regiment followed behind them.
I do think it was a war that people wanted and could see a justification for, long before it happened. I remember when fighting first broke out in Croatia, it seemed that everyone I spoke to wanted 'something to be done' And when NATO did finally go into Kosovo, the verdict seemed to be 'about time too'
"Whereas in Iraq Hussein's genocide was not a constantly documented matter of record in the same way."
You are right, we all saw the events in the former Yugoslavia on our tv screens every night and it made very grim viewing, but Iraq was largely forgotten after the first Gulf war. The fact that Saddam was killing tens of thousands of people wasn't widely reported. From time to time I see reports now about mass graves (of his victims) being uncovered in Iraq but they don't make the headlines.
I can see your point about WMD. I'm undecided about whether there ever where any, but your argument makes as much sense as the one that says those weapons never existed.
Post a Comment