"Sometimes, your posts are pure genius."Thanks!
"Other times, they are laughable."Up yours.
"Your last post about Libya belongs to the latter category."Well, you win some, you lose some.
"If you suggest going to war over a small-scale terrorist act, you just don't understand international relations very well. "I understand that there was a time when sovereign nations considered the treatment of their citizens abroad to be a matter of serious importance. To be a proper test case, we'd be looking for
a) mistreatment of a consul and a subject of the sovereign nation
b) indifference or hostility by the local government, where
c) the sovereign nation had recently supported the independence of said nation.
Interestingly, history furnishes us precisely such an example, when Great Britain dealt with mistreatment of a consul and subject by no other than Greece itself in the Don Pacifico affair back in 1850.
The Don Pacifico Affair concerned a Portuguese Jew, named David Pacifico (known as Don Pacifico), who was a trader and the Portuguese consul in Athens during the reign of King Otto. Pacifico was born in Gibraltar, a British possession. He was therefore a British subject. In 1847 an antisemitic mob that included the sons of a government minister vandalised and plundered Don Pacifico's home in Athens whilst the police looked on and took no action.
...
In 1848, after Pacifico had unsuccessfully appealed to the Greek government for compensation for his losses, he brought the matter to the attention of the British government.
In 1850 the British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, a philhellene and supporter of the Greek War of Independence of 1828-1829, took decisive action in support of Pacifico by sending a Royal Navy squadron into the Aegean to seize Greek ships and property equal to the value of Pacifico's claims, which had been decided by British courts, and were exorbitantly high. Palmerston did not recognise Greek judicial sovereignty in the matter, as the case involved a British subject. The squadron eventually blockaded Piraeus, the main port of the capital, Athens
....
The blockade lasted two months and the affair ended only when the Greek government agreed to compensate Pacifico.
That, my friend, is what a serious foreign policy looks like. You think I'm crazy to threaten military action over an embassy invasion? These guys actually went through with it over a civil case! And yes, in reply to your suggestion, I understand very well that that's not how the west rolls any more. More's the pity.
Back to Athenios:
"Hint: US embassy officials have been killed by Greek terrorists in the recent past. Does this mean that the US should go to war with Greece?"I presume you're referring to this. Should the US go to war now to avenge murders from 20-30 years ago? No, that would serve no purpose at all. Should it have done more at the time? Perhaps, I don't know the full details of how that went down.
But yes, in answer to the point, a firm message needs to be sent that killing US officials will result in disproportionate pain.
A large part of the question in international relations terms is whether the local government is a) supporting the actions, explicitly or implicitly, or b) powerless to stop them.
If the government is going to seek out and punish the offenders themselves, there is less of a need. I'd still want to see something done to make a strong point, but if it turns out that some nutjob shoots at the US embassy in Ottawa, no, the US shouldn't nuke Toronto. If I didn't say that, it's because I thought it was obvious.
But in the case here, you had the local police looking on as the mob attacks. That's a little bit different, no? In the case of Iran, the actions were carried out by the representatives of the new revolutionary government, which is very different. It is, in other words, a declaration of war. And there is no principle in war that one only attacks the enemy in the same manner and extent that he attacks you first.
If the local government is powerless to stop them, then the US has the responsibility to avenge the attacks themselves. A government that does not control its own territory may be a government de jure, but it is not a government de facto.
To return to the Greek 17 November organisation, I understand that the Greek government at the time hated the group too, and was working to eradicate it. Greece was, and is, an ally, and an important one at that. Libya is at best neutral, and may turn out to be actively hostile, and its entirely unclear how much support the government has for the objectives of those who attacked the embassy.
But in the end, there's more to it than realpolitik. A self-respecting country ought to consider it a personal attack on the dignity of the country to have its embassy stormed and its ambassador killed. Maybe you're willing to just throw your embassy staff to the wind as a cost of doing business. Maybe you've disavowed any aspects of collective punishment, and think that unless you can isolate the punishment down to the exact individuals involved, you should err on the side of doing less (or nothing at all).
But the symbolism you send to the rest of the world is atrocious. And the world pays attention to symbolism. You may think it's unimportant, but Osama Bin Laden didn't. Don't be so sure that you're saving lives in the long run by not responding with firm force. Other countries thought twice about trying to push around British subjects after 1850.
Lord Palmerston (who, I have it on very good authority, was England's greatest Prime Minister), had this to say, in defence of his actions in the Don Pacifico affair, and his foreign policy more generally:
"As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say, Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong."
Exactly.
I hope that's still true.
I said "If you suggest going to war over a small-scale terrorist act, you just don't understand international relations very well." You post confirmed my view.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, anyone who has even a passing knowledge of international affairs would know that the world is different today than it was in 1850. I hate to break it to you, but gunboat diplomacy is not a foreign policy tool nowadays.
Second, the failure of a government to stop a few of its PRIVATE CITIZEN nationals from committing terrorist acts is a not a declaration of war in any meaningful sense. Foreign policy is administrated by government officials (that didn't always used to be the case, by the way). Most people understand that only the actions of government officials (or actions sanctioned by them) can be taken as a representation of a nation's collective will and may legitimately provoke collective punishment. Failure to control a mob may or may not be equivalent to sanctioning the mob's actions. But what happened in Libya was not that: it was an organized terrorist action by a small clique of militants.
Third, many people in the British government saw Palmerstone's action for the act of idiocy that it was, EVEN FOR 1850 STANDARDS. From Wikipedia: "At Westminster, both houses of parliament took up the issue with considerable energy. After a memorable debate on June 17, 1850, the House of Lords voted to condemn Palmerston's actions. John Arthur Roebuck led the House of Commons to reverse this condemnation, which it did on June 29 by a majority of 46."
Fourth, the fact that your view is wacky is supported by the fact that NOBODY serious is suggesting going to war over this. And, no, the whackjob "War Nerd", a commenter in the prestigious Internet, doesn't count.
"[T]he world is different today than it was in 1850. I hate to break it to you, but gunboat diplomacy is not a foreign policy tool nowadays."
DeleteAgreed, but my view is not uncommon, it's just not the norm in the west. Do you think that the ChiComs, let alone Putin, would let their ambassadors be killed without a punitive military response? Russia's famous response to terrorist hostage situations is the send in the troops, even if it means the hostages die.
More to the point, do you think this presumption has anything to do with the fact that the Chinese and Russian embassies don't tend to get stormed by thugs nearly as often?
Hell, even the French probably wouldn't have permitted their diplomats to be paraded around by the Iranians. We never know counterfactuals, but my money is on the fact that they'd bomb the hell out of Tehran.
"Most people understand that only the actions of government officials (or actions sanctioned by them) can be taken as a representation of a nation's collective will and may legitimately provoke collective punishment."
First of all, there's a pretty good chance that the government, or at least some elements within it, were indeed complicit in this. From CBS news:
"According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack."
This statement came from the Minister of the Interior. Which tends to suggest that either there are rival factions within the government opposed to the official policy, or the government doesn't control its own troops.
And this is the alternative that you seem to miss. A government either has to control its territory and stop it being used as a base to launch attacks on other nations' sovereign territory, or it loses the right to complain when the other nations impose sufficient force to defend themselves.
When Libya lets its own troops aid in attack on US sovereign territory and kill American diplomats, Libya is already at war with the US. The US merely chooses whether it wishes to acknowledge this fact or not.
It's not correct to claim that 'Libya' let 'its own troops' aid the attack. At best, it was indifference or fear on the part of local security forces tasked with dealing with the initial mob, at worse, it was a deliberate move (and betrayal) by some within those forces to trigger the evacuation to the safe house.
ReplyDeleteBy all mainstream media reports, Libyan and US forces were working together to defend the consulate staff. Don't be so quick to assume that whoever was tasked with guarding the consulate staff (ie their close personal protection), were under the same command as those tasked with controlling the mob on the outside.
And even if that were the case, some reports are suggest that they were seriously out-gunned. All this points to a fundamental failure in the assessment of the security situation in Benghazi. In short, this is a complete clusterfuck and points to utter failings on the part of those tasked with protecting the Ambassador and his staff. It also stinks of a massive fix, someone betrayed them, and they should be hunted down and executed.
I say 'Libya' as you assume that there is a unified, coherent state functioning, and that all Libyan security forces work as a cohesive unit with a common purpose. Its very clear that there are factions (whether aligned by religion, blood or politics) who are all wanting their slice of the pie. Given the fractures, factions, and in-fighting that continues in Libya, its hardly sound analysis to paint this as US v Libya.
And if you do, its exactly what fundamentalists and extremists want, as it's a lot simpler to make it black and white, West vs Islam, than to acknowledge that Libya is yet to be a coherent functioning state (regardless of the religious / political flavour it will adopt). If the US reacts in a manner that is not considered and targeted, it will alienate moderates and empower fundamentalists.
And both of you are wrong: "First of all, anyone who has even a passing knowledge of international affairs would know that the world is different today than it was in 1850. I hate to break it to you, but gunboat diplomacy is not a foreign policy tool nowadays."
The world isn't much more different than it was in 1850, although some of the players have changed. British forces are again in Afghanistan, the US patrols the Arabian Gulf to protect US interest in the region, Chinese and US naval forces play cat and mouse throughout the Pacific and the Taiwan Straits, Russia recently sent a batch of naval vessels to hang out off the coast of Syria.
Not unlike herpes, gunboat diplomacy (overt or otherwise) may come and go, but right now, we've got a full blown break out, thanks to the impotence of the United Nations being exposed by continued failings in international diplomacy (in case anyone has forgotten, people continue to die in Syria whilst the United Nations continues to masturbate).
I think most of your assessments of the internal aspects of the Libyan situation are pretty fair.
DeletePerhaps where we disagree is on this point:
If the US reacts in a manner that is not considered and targeted, it will alienate moderates and empower fundamentalists.
In my view, that ship has sailed long ago. Westerners have this enormous optimism about the scores of moderates in middle eastern societies who will surely win democratic elections, if only we give them enough support.
My question is, how would you know if this was false? How would you know, in other words, whether the moderates in a lot of Islamic societies were never going to be more than a minority? And by this, I have a specific litmus test in mind - not big enough to win democratic elections, which we keep wanting to implement.
If you think that once you topple the dictators, it's very likely to be the fundamentalists in power no matter what, the question is then what message you want to send to the fundamentalists. My message would be deterrence.
Not unlike herpes, gunboat diplomacy (overt or otherwise) may come and go, but right now, we've got a full blown break out...
Ha! Comedy gold.
I won't try to respond to everything that has been said here, apart from offering some thoughts:
ReplyDeletei) International relationships at a given point in time are all about the balance of power between nations at that point in time. It used to be that the West was much more powerful than the rest of the world and could deal with the rest of the world on that basis. This is no longer true. Shylock doesn't get that point. In 1850 Greece was a tiny country, whereas Britain was an empire - Greece could not act symmetrically and Britain knew that. If you like advocating for gunboat diplomacy now, you may not like it when a Chinese tourist gets roughed up in Brisbane by a drunken Australian.
ii) Shylock seems to assume that going to war (or have some other kind of strong reaction against the Libyan state as a whole) over last week's terrorist attack (which may or not not have had the implicit or explicit endorsement or help of some part of the Libyan security apparatus - obviously the most religiously fanatical, jihadist part of it) is a good idea, as it will deter similar attacks in the future. The implicit assumption here is that the guys who orchestrated that attack do NOT want a war between Libya and the US and, more generally, that the kind of guys who are likely to orchestrate such an attack in the future would NOT want a war between the West and the Muslim world, so a strong US reaction would deter them. Anyone who knows anything about Muslim fundamentalists knows that this assumption is not exactly realistic: war between the West and the Muslim world is EXACTLY what jihadist Muslims are angling for. By taking their bait, the US would be providing any would-be religious warrior the perfect way to get the conflict he wants: just attack an embassy and, boom, instant religious war. Just to be clear: I'm referring to attacks that DO NOT have the backing of a nation's government. If a government endorses the attack (by, for example, have troops or security forces either assisting the attack or deliberately not protecting the embassy), that's a provocation and then it's up to the US to determine if its national interest would be furthered by going to war. But actions of private citizens are a completely different ballgame.
i) International relationships at a given point in time are all about the balance of power between nations at that point in time.
DeleteVery much agreed.
It used to be that the West was much more powerful than the rest of the world and could deal with the rest of the world on that basis. This is no longer true.
Vis a vis, Libya and the US, I disagree. In the first place, Libya is not exactly a military powerhouse it lost a war to Chad, of all countries. Chad! Plus on the military side alone, the US is unrivalled. Desert Storm took about 6 weeks to destroy Iraq the first time, and the second time it took about 3 weeks. I imagine the US could achieve at least that result in Libya even when Gaddafi was still around, let alone now.
The implicit assumption here is that the guys who orchestrated that attack do NOT want a war between Libya and the US and, more generally, that the kind of guys who are likely to orchestrate such an attack in the future would NOT want a war between the West and the Muslim world, so a strong US reaction would deter them.he implicit assumption here is that the guys who orchestrated that attack do NOT want a war between Libya and the US and, more generally, that the kind of guys who are likely to orchestrate such an attack in the future would NOT want a war between the West and the Muslim world, so a strong US reaction would deter them.
Let me write a longer response to that in another post, because I think this deserves a more detailed answer.
Just to be clear: I'm referring to attacks that DO NOT have the backing of a nation's government. If a government endorses the attack (by, for example, have troops or security forces either assisting the attack or deliberately not protecting the embassy), that's a provocation and then it's up to the US to determine if its national interest would be furthered by going to war. But actions of private citizens are a completely different ballgame.
Okay, so we're in agreement that if an attack has the backing of 'the government', then retaliation is justified. My standard is clear - any attack is sufficient justification, unless the embassy holding country is completely satisfied with the local country's response. I think your standard is not as clear as you think though - in cases like Libya and Egypt, it's likely that different factions of the government have different views. Plus there's lots of things a government can do to implicitly support the attacks while maintaining deniability.
On the other hand, I still don't know how you plan to deal with the situation where the local government is unable to stop the attacks. This becomes more pressing as the attacks become more asymmetric. Suppose an Al Quaeda faction traceable located in Yemen, against the will of the Yemeni government, smuggles a nuke into Manhattan and kills 5 million people. The Yemeni government apologises, but says it can't do much. Your response would be ... what? Send in the special forces to kill the 5 guys that ordered the attack? And the likely consequence of this would be what?
Exactly. You can't deal with terrorists by going to war with a state (unless the terrorists are really agents of the foreign government in question). It achieves nothing good and you may, in fact, fall into the terrorists' trap.
ReplyDeleteNow, let me address your question regarding the balance of power between the US and Libya. Sure, the US could easily defeat Libya in war, PROVIDED the US wants to fight the war properly (i.e. can accept casualties). So, the first question is how many casualties the US public is willing to stomach in a war that doesn't directly benefit US interests. But, that's not all. What's missing from this analysis is the fact that this hypothetical war could trigger reactions from other countries: the Muslim world, China, Russia, you name it. That's why I'm referring to the West vs. the rest of the world. There was a time when the West could pretty much do whatever it wanted and ignore the rest of the world. That time has passed.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/libyas-flames-of-fury-20120922-26dlt.html
ReplyDeleteThere's plenty of good reasons to not like collective punishment, threatened or real. Who on earth would want to bomb a crowd holding up signs like that? Not me, that's for sure.
DeleteCollective punishment is, however, an enormously effective (if ethically questionable) tool for dealing with insurgencies. I sure hope we can do without it, because for better or worse, there's no stomach for it in the west anymore.
One thing's for sure - these views definitely aren't shared by the people who think the right response to Johnny Nobody in California making a video is to kill the US Ambassador.