Lawyers, Guns, & Money
The legal pundits were out in force last night, discussing PM Howard’s assertion that the war on Iraq is legal under existing UN resolutions and that Australia is therefore free to join Bush’s coalition. I’m sure that the governments in that coalition have their own lawyers making the case, but the news programs trotted out the opposition, and their case seems equally valid. I suppose that in the end one side will be proved “right” by the discovery or failure to unearth Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of poison, but from my point of view, one of the more compelling indicators of the illegality of the war is that the US is buying its allies. As Meera pointed out, Australia has no vested interest in the deposing of Hussein; they are not a target, as such. Instead, it is the promise of a successfully negotiated free trade agreement that seems to compel Australia to support the war. Similarly, the promise of $6 billion in aid seems to keep the discussion underway in Turkey. And when you look at the list of the other countries among the public 30 - Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Uzbekistan – a fair number of them are very clearly among those dependent on US aid and trade. There are yet, according to Colin Powell, another 15 nations, who decline to be named among the supporters publicly, and they won’t be China, Russia, France, Germany, or any of the other major nations of the world, will they? No, outside the UN, to get its war the US has had to make payoffs. Bribery is illegal most places in the world, even in America, but that’s how business is done, and, as Michael Corleone said, this [war] isn’t personal: it’s business.