I think that this discussion has gotten away from it's initial issue of why there appears to be a distrust of the US in international circles. I would like to address certain points that verious people made (hopefully in a lucid manner). I believe that there are 2 totally separate points to be made here.
I believe that Saddam is not in compliance, however I am not convinced that the threat of "dire consequences" is legal grounds for war, however there maybe a historical precedent implying just that. In addition, the threat of military action may have been made more clear in previous resolutions with which I am not familiar. So I am willing to give the US the benefit of the legal doubt that they are within their rights to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.
That having been said, I believe that for most of the world, this is seen as a bigger issue than simply the removal of Saddam, that issue being the new direction of US foreign policy and it's dealings with other nations, which is at best clumsy and at worst bullying.
Everyone that I speak to is convinced that the US had unilaterally decided to invade Iraq LAST YEAR, UN be damned. To quote Zakaria:
The president got high marks for his superb speech at the Security Council last September, urging the United Nations to get serious about enforcing its resolutions on Iraq and to try inspections one last time. Unfortunately, that appeal had been preceded by speeches by Cheney and comments by Rumsfeld calling inspections a sham—statements that actually contradicted American policy—and making clear that the administration had decided to go to war.
In a very real way, the UN represents the world as a whole. In effect, the US was saying screw the views of the other 190(?) countries, we are the superpower here. Further to that, I heard a discussion on 1 of the networks where the question was asked, "will the UN have the right to veto US foreign policy?" To that I respond, if that foreign policy authorizes invasion of a soverign nation to remove its head-of-state I say Yes. Of course it maybe argued that the UN had already given that authorization in this case, but the question in general and the answer are still valid.
The bullying I mentioned is also described:
Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it. “Most officials in Latin American countries today are not anti-American types,†says Jorge Castaneda, the reformist foreign minister of Mexico, who resigned two months ago. “We have studied in the United States or worked there. We like and understand America. But we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt.â€
It comes across even more glaringly in the sentences directly following:
Last fall, a senior ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech supporting America’s position on Iraq, added an innocuous phrase that could have been seen as deviating from that support. The Bush administration called up his foreign minister and demanded that he be formally reprimanded within an hour.
This sort of behaviour can only engender very ill will towards the Bush administration, and by extension the US as a whole.
I leave 1 final point regarding the utter diplomatic clumsiness of this administration. Tony Blair has been risking political suicide to stand with George W. on the premise that British military help is absolutely vital to the removal of Saddam. At least, that's what he was trying to convince the media, British public, and members of his own party anyway. After the announcement that that British same military help might not be possible after all, the US Sec Def asserts in a press conference that they didn't really need British help anyway, thus leaving poor Mr. Blair to twist in the wind.
Sorry to be so long winded, but I had to get that off my chest. Please feel free to comment, debate and shoot me down where necessary.
Handbrake2.
.