The New York Times has taken notice
Mar. 27th, 2003 02:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mbarrick
In this article (Sorry, but you may need to register to view the whole article) reported Clifford Krauss notes:Two days before the first day of allied bombing in Iraq, Mr. Chrétien finally defined Canadian policy by saying no Canadian troops would fight in the war. Still, more than 50 Canadian air and ship technicians and liaison officers are stationed at the allied headquarters in Qatar and at sea with American Navy ships. A Canadian destroyer and two frigates are also patrolling in the Persian Gulf, available, Canadian military officials say, in an emergency.Further going to show that all the "disappointment" at Canada's lack of support is really only about the fact that we failed to condone unilateral agressive action. Why should our sanction even matter to the U.S.? I don't hear a lot one way or the other about Mexico not being on board (incidentally Mexico has three times the population of Canada). Why? Because Canada has an earned reputation for even-handed diplomacy and the resultant respect of a great many nations. What we say matters to the rest of the world.
It is a quiet effort, but more significant than those of most of the nations explicitly backing the war. Meanwhile, the Canadian Army will send 2,000 troops back to Afghanistan later this year, freeing American forces for operations in the Persian Gulf.
And just how much more are we doing than the countries that have expressed support? Only Britain, Australia, Denmark and Albania have comitted troops to the war. And only Britain has more people there than Canada does.
The list of disclosed supporting countries is: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.
There are other countries that are undisclosed but presumed to be on the supporters list because they are providing bases including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt
Notice how Israel isn't on either list? Talk about waffling! Here we are willing to say that we don't condone this agression but all the while still supplying material support (which, if we had said nothing would have put us on the latter list), yet Israel which was bombed by Iraq in the last Gulf War won't stand up to say that anything or offer any material support.
Any what about that disclosed list? A bit padded, I'd say? Let's look at some of the padded entries:
Afghanistan: They don't even have a proper government yet. The provisional government is U.S. appointed.
Albania: Millitary expendature roughly eqivalent to the snow-removal budget of Montréal. They've offered 70 men.
Azerbaijan: their primary industry is oil and they are trying to move into the European and American markets
Columbia: The current government has been under siege for 40 years and relies heavily of US support to stay in power. The US maintains support to control the drug trade that funds the rebel groups.
Costa Rica: No standing army, 52% of GDP comes from US trade.
El Salvador: current government backed by US in order to overthrow communist rebels.
Eritrea: Separated from Ethiopia in 1991, desperately poor and still in the processes of defining how its government is going to work.
Iceland: The total population of Iceland is about 275,000 people and they don't have an army. The defense of Iceland is handled by a US-manned force.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia: Do I really need to say anything about the crushing military might and massive economic influence of this triumvirate of Baltic super-powers?
Kuwait: Well, duh.
Macedonia: Claim to fame, "At independence in November 1991, Macedonia was the least developed of the Yugoslav republics, producing a mere 5% of the total federal output of goods and services." (CIA Factbook)
Marshall Islands: OK, this one made me laugh out loud. A bunch of coral atolls. Total population 77,000. Main source of income: US aid and restitution for US atomic testing.
Micronesia: No military. Population 111,000 and I'll let the CIA Factbook speak for itself on this: "In 1979 the Federated States of Micronesia, a UN Trust Territory under US administration, adopted a constitution. In 1986 independence was attained under a Compact of Free Association with the US. Present concerns include large-scale unemployment, overfishing, and overdependence on US aid."
Nicaragua: Quothe the factbook: "Nicaraguan aid to leftist rebels in El Salvador caused the US to sponsor anti-Sandinista contra guerrillas through much of the 1980s. Free elections in 1990, 1996, and again in 2001 saw the Sandinistas defeated."
Palau: Another set of coral atoll that used to be a US trust and are totally dependent on US aid. No army. Population 11,000.
Rwanda: Home of some of the worst massacres since WWII. A military budget that about the same as Montréal's snow removal budget. Population just under the population of the island of Manhattan. Current government targeted by an Islamic rebel group.
Solomon Islands: Another highly influential bunch of South Pacific islands with no army.
Uganda: Right up there with Rwanda.
Uzbekistan: Quothe the Factbook: "the country seeks to gradually lessen its dependence on agriculture while developing its mineral and petroleum reserves. Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a nonconvertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization."
So there you have it, the bulk of "The Coalition of the Willing" are either U.S. vassal states, desperately poor, have no army, or have human-rights problems that make Iraq look like paradise.
The list comes from this New York Times backgrounder. Most of the country information comes from the CIA Factbook and general knowledge.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Scandihoovia
Date: 2003-03-27 03:05 pm (UTC)They have more independence in foreign policy than our beloved Canuckistan... umm, I mean Canada. The only reason the US military is in Iceland is because the Americans set up a base there during WW2 while the country was still formally a province of Denmark (like Greenland is still). If the Icelanders could tear up the agreement early, they would.
What happened to India, Israel and the Irish Republic? I thought these three were also listed as supporters of the coalition.
But you are right about most of these countries - especially the so-called former US Trust Territories in the Pacific.
Re: Scandihoovia
Date: 2003-03-27 03:19 pm (UTC)According to my source, the New York Times, Israel was "undeclaired" and offering no concrete support in the form of troops or bases because they don't want to piss off the surrounding Arab nations any more than they already have. There was no mention of India or Ireland. The article may have been slighly out of date. Point is of the list of "46 countries" only about 10, have a choice in the matter and anything to offer. And of those only one is offering more concrete support to the U.S. than we already are.
Re: Scandihoovia
Date: 2003-03-27 03:30 pm (UTC)Re: Scandihoovia
Date: 2003-03-27 03:44 pm (UTC)Israel
Date: 2003-03-27 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-27 04:24 pm (UTC)the COALITION. I honestly think Iraq is not a real threat to
the US... but Add Iran, Pakistan, turkey , Afganistan, Saudi Arabis , Egypt.. and almost the entire continent of Africa.. and then the US is in a lot of trouble.
Maybe thats the ONLY thing Bush did right in this "war"
Poland
Date: 2003-03-27 03:52 pm (UTC)Re: Poland
Date: 2003-03-27 03:55 pm (UTC)http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6146270%255E25778,00.html
Re: Poland
Date: 2003-03-27 04:05 pm (UTC)Re: Poland
Date: 2003-03-27 04:18 pm (UTC)"USA OK !"
So jets that fly overhead could get that Moral boost.
Or they could form a Giant arrow pointing in the direction of the enemy.
Or they could all go in together and lift one Bomb - carry it to Bagdad and throw it.
OK Jet!
Date: 2003-03-27 04:27 pm (UTC)Oh my god!!!! This so reminds me of a Czechoslovak CSA Airlines plane I once saw in London in 1979.
It's tailfin flash was the Czechoslovak flag and the words "OK Jet" superimposed - I just hope this wasn't some sort of government 'your guaranteed-proof-of-airworthiness' statement.
Re: Poland
Date: 2003-03-27 04:19 pm (UTC)Nevetheless I'm still perplexed by the Polish rationale - snickers from some euroquarters - to commit troops. Reading through and past the usual statements about non-compliance of UN resolutions, I'm not quite sure what their real motives are. It isn't like the people of Baghdad are world reknown sausage connoiseurs or big fans of bland beer with a clean, crsip sheet-metal aftertaste.
Re: Poland
Date: 2003-03-27 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-27 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 08:02 am (UTC)Your assertion that this war has anything to do with Israel is false as Israel has been able to handle Iraq in the past, don't forget how Israel single handedly destroyed iraq's Nuclear weapons program
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 06:12 pm (UTC)Two words
Date: 2003-03-27 09:27 pm (UTC)Exactly wher do you all figure them in? And what would the implications be THEN!