America Resorts to Economic Blackmail

[skywalker]

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

[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".

[The Hierophant]

left will say: despicable bullying.

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

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

[Cerek the Barbaric]

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.

[Davros]

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

[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]

[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

[Davros]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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:

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:

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:

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

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 ]