|
ROME -- Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi got the full Crawford,
Texas, ranch ego-massage last week.
Understandably -- for President George Bush was deeply grateful
for the conservative leader's support of the U.S.-British intervention
in Iraq. The media-mogul-turned-politician had been one of the few
major European leaders to side with the United States.
His reward is being enshrined in the Crawford Hall of Fame, which
comprises a select list. It includes British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, Russian President Vladimir
Putin, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and former China President
Jiang Zemin.
But, in fact, Berlusconi's pro-war stance is no more popular in
Italy than Blair's in the United Kingdom -- notwithstanding the
dramatic news that Saddam Hussein's two odious sons were killed
in a U.S. ambush. Few will shed a tear for that pair.
Blair's problems grew last week even as Berlusconi was luxuriating
in the Crawford glow. London has been shaken by a profound media
melee and personal tragedy. A government microbiologist who had
harbored doubts about the potency and enormity of Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction -- and who evidently leaked such doubts
to the BBC -- was found dead, presumably a suicide.
The end of the affair is nowhere in sight -- and might even bring
down some government officials, if not the government itself. Moreover,
the extraordinarily chilling news from London tainted the otherwise
respectable intent of Blair's whirlwind trip to Asia that featured
useful
stops in Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Thus, the reverberations of this war throughout the global political
system are beginning to be felt. What's new is not war itself but
rather the dangerous doctrine of military preemption. Theoretically,
it is an attractive idea: Strike them first before they strike you.
But practically, it is a double-edged sword that can slice open
unanticipated problems even as it seeks to prevent the anticipated
ones.
To this end, one had to be impressed by comments coming out of a
recent conference dealing with this new doctrine, held at the cutting-edge
East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. There, participants focused
on the unpredictable consequences that crop up when a powerful nation
launches a military thrust into a weaker country said to pose a
threat.
'"The guns will be taken back, but what happens to the people
who had the guns?" said one participant, emphasizing the complexity
of outside preemptions.
Not even the establishment of law and order will necessarily stabilize
a troubled country, even if fully occupied by the outside power.
To be sure, the intervention forces must focus on rebuilding the
police, judiciary and prison systems, not to mention government
finance and management. But they should also look at other issues
of social order, such as education and health. This is why prioritizing
the training of public servants is extremely vital, "or in
the long run we might go back to square one," concluded one
delegate.
It is absolutely sure, delegates agreed, that the armed forces of
the smaller country will in general shrink from direct challenge
with the
much-better-equipped invading force. But as the weeks and months
of occupation roll on, resistance to the occupation will inevitably
rise and thus increase the cost of the preemption to the invader.
It is far easier to invade a nation than to transform it.
To lower the cost and make the effort more efficient, it was suggested,
occupiers need to consult the locals fully and sincerely before
making any major decision. The intervenors need to focus on the
victims of the violence as well as the perpetrators. The invaders
"must not be dictating" but work in consultation with
the locals.
Doesn't this sound like helpful advice for the United States and
Great Britain in their Iraqi intervention?
Perhaps -- but the conference's topic was not about that. It was
about Australia in the Solomon Islands!
On July 24, Australia landed preemptively on that nearby island
nation, torn to shreds by violence since a 2000 coup, with several
thousand military and police forces.
And the Howard government insists that other Pacific nations will
be sending a small number of forces as well. Sound familiar?
Australian government sources also said the invasion was necessary
because terrorists, money launderers and drug traffickers could
use the nation as a base if order is not restored there. Sound familiar?
Australia's Howard has thus followed the lead of America's Bush.
Who next will follow their lead? And where will this preemption
take the world?
|
|
The above weekly column has just appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser,
The South China Morning Post and The Straits Times of Singapore.
The author, Tom Plate, is a regular columnist at these three papers.
The column also appears in other world newspapers, including The
San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, The Japan Times and
The Korea Times. Email him at: tplate@ucla.edu.
For publication
and reprint rights, contact the author directly or John Simpson
(john.simpson@latsi.com) of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate International. |
