More Visual Bull
|
The Coalition Mirage
 The concept of an international coalition implies nations joining together for a common purpose. The Iraqi war represents the concept of "coalition" turned on its head. The motivations for participating in the Iraqi war and its aftermath has very little to do with common purpose or common security. It has a lot more to do with international political alignments and profits.
The primary driver for the creation of the coalition is the American government, which needs the appearance of international participation to cover up the fact that neither the United Nations nor a huge majority of the world's population support the war or occupation. The façade of a coalition was designed to placate American public opinion and continues to be shoveled out the public in order to imply that the Iraqi adventure is an international cooperative effort. The behind-the-scenes reality paints a far different picture. Excluding England (for the moment), the motives behind the other "coalition partners" is an ugly picture of greed, international threats and thinly disguised international bribery.
Japan: Japan's recent contribution of 1000 "peacekeeping troops" represents pragmatism at its most base level. The Bush administration has made it abundantly clear that major contracts will go to countries who participate in the coalition. Japan learned its lesson from the first Gulf War when it chose not to participate because of its constitutional prohibition on sending troops overseas. The Kuwaiti government made public statements that it would give the contracts for its rebuilding primarily to those countries that assisted in its liberation. Japanese firms were locked out of most of these contracts. The Japanese government was not about to make the same mistake this go around. Furthermore, Japan wants to ensure that it can maintain its oil demands in the Middle East as it relies on the region for nearly 90 percent of its oil and natural gas imports. As long as Japan does not suffer significant casualties its Iraqi contribution will prove quite profitable.
Poland: Poland is one of main participants in the coalition (if 2000 out of nearly 300,000 troops can be considered participation). Poland's contribution has little to do with Iraq but plenty to do with solidifying its relationship with the United States. Poland is trying to position itself as an international force and has received considerable support from U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has made the distinction between Old Europe (France and Germany) and New Europe (the emerging ex-Soviet bloc nations). While Poland accepted full membership in the European Union, they have made strides to establish a closer relationship with the United States. The Polish government perceives its position in the European Union as a weak sister, never being able to match the economic power of Germany or France. By aligning closer with the United States, they see a means for acquiring more political and economic power in their dealings with Europe. The United States has given them the opening and the Polish government is taking the bait. Other than re-establishing their Baghdad office of the Polish Oil Company Nafta Polska, their participation in Iraq is just a means for currying favor with the American government.
Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. These seven nations have contributed approximately 3000 troops collectively.
1640 - Ukraine
500 - Bulgaria
300+ - Hungary
150 - Romania
150 - Latvia
85 - Slovakia
80 - Lithuania
These nations, like Poland, are trying to emerge on the world scene after 50 years as quasi-dependent states in the old Soviet empire. The United States has promised economic support and international prestige to each country in return for their participation in the coalition. The level of participation is insignificant and certainly the United States can get by in Iraq without 85 Slovakians. However; the "44 nation international coalition" would only be 37 without this participation. This token support by each of these countries buys them a lot of clout from America at a very small price.
South Korea: Political observers may wonder why South Korea; a small nation nearly 8000 miles from Iraq, would be sending troops to help establish peace in Iraq. One need look no further than the 25,000 U.S. troops that help guard their northern border. Korean participation is the result of pressure, threats, and coercion by the United States government. It is no coincidence that North Korean military strength has become a topic among the Bush administration in recent months. It is a reminder that Korea is dependent upon American security. This dependence comes with some obligations; political "chips" that can be cashed in whenever the United States needs them. In addition; unlike Japan, Korean businesses benefited significantly from the rebuilding of Kuwait. If Japan is participating in order to gain reconstruction contracts, it is obvious that Korea does not want to be left out.
Australia and Italy: Australia and Italy have contributed a few thousand troops each for essentially the same reason. It is more advantageous to be on the "inside" than on the "outside." Each has significant economic interests in Iraq and both faced being excluded if they did not participate in the coalition. Both troop deployments were moved to less active segments of the battlefield to minimize the chance of casualties. Australia has not suffered any casualties although Italy suffered 14 dead after a bomb explosion. The war is unpopular in both countries but the economic interests prevail.
England: The only significant contribution to the war effort outside of the United States is from Great Britain. For the British government (there is little popular support for British involvement), the war was a political gamble. From pre-war statements it is clear that British Prime Minister Tony Blair believed the war would be a relatively painless affair. He appears to be the only foreign leader who bought into the Bush administration assessment of pre-war Iraq. It also appears that he wanted to maintain separation from the other European powers and put some distance between England and the European Union. Tony Blair is also one of the few liberal/labor party leaders among the coalition "partners" and he was in the unique position of having a solid parliamentary majority and a Conservative Opposition that also supported the war. Consequently, he perceived is political risk as minimal and believed the potential economic gains would outweigh the risks. Of course, he did not expect the abuse/torture scandal that boosted his political risk to near catastrophic levels. Had he perceived the political cost it is unlikely he would have hitched his political career to George Bush's.
It is quite obvious that this is a coalition in name only. It is little more than a political spin the make the war seem more popular than it is in reality. There is a coalition only insofar as there will be an economic carcass for the vultures to pick apart.
|
