Ironworks Gaming Forum - America Resorts to Economic Blackmail

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - America Resorts to Economic Blackmail (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78256)

Moscow Times

Thursday, Mar. 6, 2003. Page 1

America Resorts to Economic Blackmail

By Catherine Belton
Staff Writer

Showing its exasperation with Russia's growing defiance of U.S. war plans, the United States on Wednesday resorted to economic blackmail and warned Russia that it risks jeopardizing its bid to join the World Trade Organization if it vetoes a UN Security Council resolution.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...03/06/001.html

I find this kind of armtwisting to get your way indefensible and unfortunately more prevalent every day. This is not how a Major World Power should act.

Mark

Wow, that's almost as bad as telling the Russians they were "poorly raised" and that they "missed a great chance to shut up". ;)

left will say: despicable bullying.

right will say: all's fair in love and war.

'round and 'round and 'round we go...

Actually, Heirophant, the right will say....

"How is this different than France and Germany threatening to deny U.N. membership to the 10 "New School" applicant countries that chose NOT to side with them in condemning the U.S. plans for war?"

The French ambassodor to the U.N. plainly stated that these applicant countries were "jeapordizing" their prospective membership in the U.N. because they refused to fall in line. He went on to say that, if these countries were going to engage in a pattern of disagreeing with the "Old School" countries, then the U.N. needed to reconsider whether or not they should be allowed to join.

So I guess you were right after all. Apparantly, all IS fair in love and war. ;)

So that makes it all right then .......................................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
............................... doesn't it?

I didn't say that it did, Davros. I just pointed out that France and Germany were guilty of the exact same behavior....but of course it's the U.S. that is painted as the "bad guy".

Therefore, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that it is - indeed - "OK" for those opposed to the war to engage in these activities...but it is NOT "OK" for the U.S. to do so. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

The issue is leading by example. If the US wants to be topdog and lead the World into a better future, it needs pay close attention to its Foreign Policy.

It's not about who else is doing wrong, it's about looking at ourselves and asking are we doing right.

Mark

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
I didn't say that it did, Davros. I just pointed out that France and Germany were guilty of the exact same behavior....but of course it's the U.S. that is painted as the "bad guy".

Therefore, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that it is - indeed - "OK" for those opposed to the war to engage in these activities...but it is NOT "OK" for the U.S. to do so. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Shakes head - no Cerek - somehow I don't recall ever suggesting that France was in the right about that, or suggesting that the US was the bad guy. You are making inferences that I have not implied, and your conclusions regarding both are not ones I agree with.

I simply asked the question did you think it was right. I find these days that I have more of an interest in knowing if people are being honest to themselves rather than being honest to their causes. I think many of us are far too committed to the causes we espouse and the danger with that is that the replies and the defenses become automatic. Sometimes the simple truths are being missed in the wash-up.

First, how dare any of us try to put a moral value on a perfectly acceptable political tool. Relationships between people will always work this way. Why is one diplomacy tool better or worse than any other? To threaten a veto, or offer a bribe, or dangle an unrelated topic as a ramification - all are inherent in politics and in fact human relations. How utterly silly and naive we would be to assume or insist otherwise.

Second:

Quote:

From the Article:
"We wouldn't want to hold the relationship hostage [to Iraq] any more than Russia, but our ability to move forward on some issues -- on WTO accession, on the removal of Jackson-Vanik -- could be affected at least in the short term," the diplomat said. "In no case will the damage be irreparable, but there could be damage.

"The Russians understand that their degree of involvement in post-Saddam arrangements ... will be significantly influenced by the degree to which they are seen as supporting or not obstructing on a resolution of the crisis," he said. "I think they understand there could be negative consequences of a veto with respect to Russia's interests [in Iraq]."
*******

Analysts interpreted Voloshin's trip to Washington, where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and other senior administration officials, as well as Henry Kissinger, as an attempt to seal concrete economic deals in return for Russia's support or abstention on the Security Council.

Translation: Russia opposes war but we sure as hell want a cut of the pie.

Third:

Quote:

Russian oil majors have held large contracts to develop Iraq's oil patch, which contains the second-largest reserves in the world, and Russia has been Iraq's biggest trading partner under the UN sanctions regime.

Translation: Russia wins either way, as it is currently benefitting from Saddam.

Fourth:

Quote:

He said Russia's increasing opposition to the U.S.-backed resolution seemed like a ploy to avoid having a vote altogether." Their preference seems to be for [military] action to come about without a second Security Council resolution," the diplomat said.

But he could not say whether Russia's economic interests in Iraq would still be assured if that was the case. "That depends on how we get to that point. We hope that the Russians, even if they can't support what we're doing, will not actively seek to oppose us."

The diplomat said the chances of a "yes" vote from Russia now appeared to be "pretty slim."

Translation: We all know Russia doesn't really care so much about the war as it does about making an unpopular political decision by actually "supporting" the war, so in the end it will simply not vote.

And Fifth:
The article is entirely based on a phone interview with a U.S. diplomat talking to The MOscow Times. The diplomat I'm sure got everything he said from "on high." He used the interview as an opportunity to communicate a U.S. threat to us all. This interview in and of itself is a political move designed to send a message. I'm beginning to wonder just how cagey this administration is. Hard-nose negotiators normally walk away from the table with what they wanted. ;)

Based on what the guy said, I think economic blackmail is a bit strong.

Certainly not as direct a threat as Chirac's inflammatory statement to future EU members. Nothing derogitory here, maybe it isn't nice, but it's nothing in comparison.

[ 03-06-2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Personally, I don't care if it is a "perfectly acceptable political tool". I just wouldn't do it to someone that is a friend to get what I want. It would be nice if the nations involved were friends, it's naive,to think so, I know. But I can think about it.

Mark

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros:
Shakes head - no Cerek - somehow I don't recall ever suggesting that France was in the right about that, or suggesting that the US was the bad guy. You are making inferences that I have not implied, and your conclusions regarding both are not ones I agree with.

I simply asked the question did you think it was right. I find these days that I have more of an interest in knowing if people are being honest to themselves rather than being honest to their causes. I think many of us are far too committed to the causes we espouse and the danger with that is that the replies and the defenses become automatic. Sometimes the simple truths are being missed in the wash-up.

First of all, Davros, I offer my apologies for mis-interpreting your statement. You are right that my "defenses" get raised automatically and the point of asking WHY we believe as we do IS a valid one.

So - to answer your question - do I think the U.S. is "right" to take this stance with Russia. The answer is YES. As Ronn pointed out, they don't want to actively support us, but they certainly want to benefit from our actions once it's over and done with. For the U.S. to say "Don't be so certain about the amount of economic windfall you will recieve from this" seems like a perfectly legitimate position to take.

To reference the popular children's tale....none of the other animals want to help the hen grow wheat, take it to be ground into grain, or bake the bread...but they ALL line up to ask for a piece of the bread after all the work has been done. I think America has the right to say, "Sorry, you didn't help with this...so we don't owe you any benefit from our actions."

As to my defenses and my accusation of the U.S. being "painted as the bad guy" - let's just take a look at some of the thread titles in this forum.

1) America Resorts to Economic Blackmail - started by skywalker.
2) Why doesn't the U.S. pay it's debts? - started by Moiraine.
3) U.S. dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war.. - started by Dreamer128.


Maybe I'm the one that's wrong, but these titles certainly don't sound very "objective" to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Davros:
So that makes it all right then .......................................
.................................................. .....................
.................................................. .....................
............................... doesn't it?

Actually no it doesn't. What it says and clearly shows is, "This is how the game is played". If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. Every nation is free to act as it chooses, but the moment you choose, you must realize that every choice has a consequence and a reaction..sort of like the third law of thermodynamics I believe.

PS. I liked what you said to Cerek, it is good to have someone make you check to see if you were being honest with yourself.

[ 03-06-2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker:
Personally, I don't care if it is a "perfectly acceptable political tool". I just wouldn't do it to someone that is a friend to get what I want. It would be nice if the nations involved were friends, it's naive,to think so, I know. But I can think about it.

Mark

Exactly how has this friend shown his friendship? just curious. :D I think I posted somewhere that it can be argued that there are several nations in europe that cannot be classified as "friend" even though they are or have been or are again members of NATO.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
Wow, that's almost as bad as telling the Russians they were "poorly raised" and that they "missed a great chance to shut up". ;)

[img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

"Forest Gump Voice": And that's all I have to say about that.

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker:
The issue is leading by example. If the US wants to be topdog and lead the World into a better future, it needs pay close attention to its Foreign Policy.

It's not about who else is doing wrong, it's about looking at ourselves and asking are we doing right.

Mark

I agree! And what better way of doing this than teaching these countries the meaning of free trade, and the consequences of playing hard ball over oil and exclusive trading rights. If in this issue, you go against us because of your own self interests, why would you be suprised that we will do the same?
That my friend is simply business.

Genuine thanks to Cerek and MagiK for their reponses. I also on an ethical perspective don't think it is right, but I also appreciate from a practical perspective the reasons why it is being done.

I wish the US would just stop resorting to economic blackmail. It can only backfire in the long run and it really isn't helping to improve image of the US.

The US should just accept a country's decision and move on.

Looks like the US is desperate for more support. When you think about Saddam is no dummy. The more time he buys, the more sympathy he gets.

I can't say as I agree with this either, it's certainly not the way to conduct yourself as a power.

Quote:

Originally posted by Animal:
When you think about Saddam is no dummy. The more time he buys, the more sympathy he gets.

That pretty much says it all. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]