Ciao!

Waiting already for my comments? Well, I keep it short and only to one point you mentioned (for now) as I am working on an analysis of the Schroeder speech from today.

Oh, there was one amusing moment. Petri, responded to an audience member's comment, stated that there was "no example" of a successful democracy imposed by force. I couldn't contain myself, so I yelled out: "What about Germany?" Petri was immediately irritated, and started talking about Germany's previous experience w/ democracy - the Weimar Republic. [OK, so what about Japan?]

Even Japan had pre-WW2 experiences in democracy. While by some standards it may not have passed as a full fledged democracy, the Meiji Constitution allowed for the development of a party-system, allowed for elections etc. While still giving priviledges to the aristocracy and having a weak parliament, the Meiji Constitution can be called democratic and Japan pre-WW2 (until about 1934) can be called a democracy.

BTW, while not going as far as calling someone an arrogant ass, I'd share your opinion about both speakers.

Well, I think that's stretching it on both counts - the German and Japan "pre-war" democratic examples. After all, one could make a similar argument for pretty much any country. Didn't Iraq have a semi-electoral something before Hussein's coup? Either way, Huntington's "The Third Wave" even has democracy by impossition as one of the categories of democratization and lists Germany, Japan, Austria, Italy, and South Korea (see page 40).

The bottom line is that the post-war democracies were instituted by force. And they were successful. Both the Nazi German and military Japanese regimes were toppled - by force - and replaced by democracies - imposed by the outside and w/ military governorships. No ammount of semantics can cover up that fact.

The point is he shouldn't have said that there was "no historical example" of an imposed democracy when he could've very realistically argued that it'll be very difficult (though not impossible) to do so in Iraq. For a German diplomat to argue that no successful democracy was ever installed by military conquest is just, well, ridiculously ironic.

Hi,
great report on the event.
About democracy by force:
Well, I think it is a bit more complicated. Germany had the Weimar Republic. But eventually people voted for nondemocratic powers (Monarchists, Nazis and Communists) That shows us, that the people were not ready for democracy.
After WW2 we were ready for regime change. I think that had to do with the great shock experienced by what a German regime was able to do for the past 12 years. People were enthausiastic about democracy and/or socialism cos they wanted to enter a new era.
the Western Allies imposed democracy and the USSR imposed socialism. To a large extent both was welcomed by the people. I mean, I know of a lot of examples of people leaving the Eastern parts of Germany and Berlin cos they didn't wanna replace one dictatorship with another (in my own family) but I also know of a great deal of people that believed that socialsim was the real chance to try something new, something better.
What I am trying to say is that FORCING democracy isn't the only expicable reason for the democratic post war western Germany. It depends on whether the people support it or not. (The regime change in 1989/90 happened for exactly that reason: People didn't support the East German goevernment anymore. It had little to do with America or the West in general). Maybe Mr. Petri was having something like that in mind, I don't know.
For Japan, I have to admit that I am not quite familiar with the Japanese system. It seems to me though that the imperial family still plays an important role. Is it really as powerless as like the Brithish royals? As I said, I don't really know abt Japan, maybe I would have to agree that democracy was forced, that is if a full democracy exists over there. I will need to learn more about that.

For France's position if a war is started:
Well, I think it is a legitimate thing to commit yourself to a peaceful resolution of the conflict as well as it is to fight for a forceful one. Let's say there is war. What would anyone expect from the current opposers of war? Should France impose sanctions on the US or start a war? of course not. What can be done? Nothing. If Mr. Bush wants to go to war next week he will.
I 'd like to make a point abt German position on this. Interestingly Mr. Schröder agreed already to let the US use its bases in Germany and also to let the US use our air space (as part of our NATO duties). If the war starts without a new mandate from the UN, alowing this would break our constitution. Because it forbids us to participate in any action breaking international law. According to the large majority of political scientists and law experts overhere action against Iraq without a new resolution would be such a violation of international law.
Anyhow, the position that war opposing countries can take after a war has started is quite difficult.

I disagree about leaving the UN being a good idea for the US. Apart from giving up the chance to have an instituion for WORLDWIDE cooperation (instead of a competition of regional ones) it would also make it easy for anti-americanists to argue that the US have these mentioned imperialistic dreams. It is not a wise attitude (in my opinion) to show off one's powerful position harshly all the time. This leads to instant resentment and perhaps increases the threat of a western-islmaic clash of civilisations. If that clash is underway, evitable or inevitable is not proven without a doubt yet, I believe. Clearly there is a resentment of people to foreign rule. My opinion is that if the western world can guide other peoples towards democracy without creating the impression of being colonizers and conquerers that clash is evitable. But to achieve this everyone has to be ready to dismount one's high horse be it in Europe or America.

Well, there are no french fries anymore in the House of Representatives. There are freedom fries.
This is by far the greatest political statement I have ever heard! What should American Football be called in Europe now? War Football?
What a silly world do we live in?

Well, there are no french fries anymore in the House of Representatives. There are freedom fries.

Marco you will be delighted to hear that Dr. Petri called the French Consul the "Freedom Consul"

As for the Japanese Emperial family, it has been really not that powerful since WW2, it has been a symbol for the nation, nothing more. I'd even go as far as to say that the Japanese emperial family is less powerful than the British Royal Family.

I do think Japan counts as a full fledged democracy. It has been under a long one-party domination, but nevertheless has been demcratic since 1945.
My point is that the Meiji consitution was a democratic constitution and existed and worked in a democratic way for good 40 years, which is a significant time. If I find the paper I wrote on the Meiji constitution years back (I wrote that in German) I will elaborate more on it.
Nothing comparable existed for pre-Saddam Iraq which was originally designed as a monarchy.

Marco and Melli:

On the whole "democracy by force" argument. I think you both missed my point - and why Petri was dead wrong in his statement. Petri stated - very emphatically - that there was no clear example of a democracy imposed by force that succedded. Period. That's all he said. No qualifiers.

Whether Germany or Japan (or any of the other examples) had previous democratic experiences is not the issue, the clear issue is that Germany democratized because it lost the Second World War. The new democratic regime (in the West) that replaced the Nazi regime was imposed by force. That is remained in place and was consolidated was due to many factors, of course. But it was imposed by force.

To that extent, there are arguments for why democracy might succeed in Iraq in the same way. It's a secular, modern society (w/ a large middle class), and it has many economic resources. Success will depend on more than just American presence. No doubt about that. The odds are slightly stacked against that prospect.

But the point is that such a precedent does exist. Something no German or Japanese diplomat should ever try to ignore. Not because they need to always thank us, but because one should always recognize irrefutable facts. I can't really trust a diplomat who displays such an inability to grasp objective reality.

Several responses are justified given the rather one-sided nature of the above synopsis of the consuls' panel.

1. Dechert's reference to Africa and the Middle East as "our Mexico" has little to do with neo-colonialism and "spheres of influence" and more to do with the consequences of largely open borders. What is the significance of Mexico to the US? The primacy of trade partnerships and a source of large-scale population transfer, both of which of their costs and benefits. The US must (or at least should) deal wisely and tactfully in its foreign relations with Mexico as one of its closest neighbors. The south of Europe should do the same with its neighboring LDCs.

2. Dechert's reference to Huntington's "clash of civilizations", while an argument I am not particularly fond of personally, is perhaps more relevant to current political discourse today with regard to west-east(near east) differences than with trans-atlantic relations which inevitably wax and wane with less serious consequences for the bulk of the world's population.

3. Why should Dechert's assertion that war is still "evitable" be regarded as absurd? Perhaps, this latter position is a bit more idealistic and hopeful, but as one recent slogan adopted by a Parisian student protest stated, "Let us be realists. Let us demand the impossible." The bottom line, is simply that the international community is centered upon ideals and hopes. To disregard the role of the United Nations and its Security Council in preventing war and maintining peace and security--i.e., to push for war when unauthorized as an enforcement action (as the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. were in the 1990s) would be to disregard almost 58 years of international law and legal institutions aimed at preventing war. What a waste and regression in diplomacy!

4. If, as the Bush administration claims, Iraq truly poses an immediate and great threat to the US and the rest of the world, then why hasn't such intelligence been shared with the other 14 Security Council member states and the weapons inspectors? Surely with the number of states, including France, who have state the willingness to use force as a last resort, such intelligence (if it did in fact exist) would finally put Hussein in a position to fully disarm or face these serious, last-resort consequences. Personally, I think the only proof Bush has of Iraqi possession of WMDs are the receipts from the US sales of such arms to Iraq in the 1980s.

In the words of our current nobel peace laureate, Jimmy Carter, [paraphrased] war at times is a necessary evil, but it is always evil. Anyone, including the French, who continue to uphold such standards in the face of US pressure is hardly in a position that justifies ridicule.

Chris Ebsch

The tone in which Dechert described Africa and the Middle East as his "Mexico" was haughty and came in the context of later justifying French unilateral intervention in those countries. Also, in the context of the American "Monroe Doctrine" (that states that the US will prevent European involvement in the Western Hemisphere), it does seem like neocolonialism (and I don't approve of how we treat Mexico). Secondly, if he only meant to state this as neighbors w/ open borders, why not include Canada in the example? Surely, our border w/ them is even more open. In short, it's clear he implied neocolonialism and Mexican inferiority.

Your statement about Huntington is absolutely correct. That's exactly what I wrote. Huntington's statement has no reference to intra-West conflict, but rather conflict between the West and other cultures. He also points out that the Islamic civilization will be the root of most conflicts.

Dechert's assertion that war is still "evitable" is absurd because France has done nothing to prevent it. Once Bush declared that he would go to war w/o UN support, war became inevitable - unless the French and the rest of the Security Council could somehow manage to force Hussein into compliance. By focusing their diplomatic attention against Bush, rather than Hussein, the French have missed that opportunity. That said, it is still possible to avoid war - if France can come up w/ a Hail Marry plan (the Saudis have already suggested it) and push for it. But non-constructive obstructionism won't prevent war. Since that is all Dechert said ("I believe war is still evitable"), it seemed like empty rhetoric.

As to proof. Didn't you see Powell's presentation to the SC? And we know about Hussein's WMD from UN sources and his own documentation. Bush has been pushing for Hussein to explain the discrepancies in Iraq's own documentation. We found the Al Samoud 2 missile, which previous inspectors had specifically prohibited Hussein from building. Last night, Hussein admitted that he had mobile chemical laboratories (something he constantly denied). And as for weapons sales, just last week France sold Iraq weapons components. So the receipts are a bit more spread out - and mostly in German, French, Russian hands.

I don't see France upholding any standards other than trying to look important and powerful. Chirach himself has stated that he doesn't care much about Iraq, he's doing this to secure France as head of a new bipolar world.

Democracy cannot be imposed by force for the very simple reason that if you invade a nation to impose a political system there, you are acting against the most fundamental principle of democracy. Any legitimate government arises from the people. Imposing democracy is a contradiction in terms. Ending a dictatorship of course not.
Note that the Weimar republic (or "the vacant throne" according to Churchill) in Germany was imposed after WWI by the US and failed spectacularly after a few decades. The US did learn from WWI, and did not 'impose' any political systems after WWII in the liberated countries. Also in 1795, after the French revolution, the Republic of France occupied the Netherlands and imposed democracy on it. In 1813 the French were defeated and the parliament immediately decided to offer the position of absolute monarch to Willem I of Orange. The notion of 'democracy' only became fashionable again decades later, once it had lost its connotation of French imposition.

You are factually incorrect. After the Second World War the allies imposed - by occupation - democracy in Germany and Japan.Another factual error in your comment. The Kaiser abdicated before the end of the war and not as condition for peace. The Weimar republic wasn't imposed by anyone, it was created by a brief social revolution w/in Germany itself.

Also, the French didn't impose "democracy" anywhere in the 1800s. I use the word "democracy" the way Robert Dahl does. There was no democracy in the world until the early 1900s.

Personally, I think the only proof Bush has of Iraqi possession of WMDs are the receipts from the US sales of such arms to Iraq in the 1980s.

And I think you will find these receipts in the records of the Pentagon, as the following source suggests: Senate Remarks: Reaping what we have sown in Iraq? It's odd the Rumsfeld does not remember it ... .

However this is not to deny that French and German firms haven't sent anything to Iraq either.

No one denies that we made mistakes in the 1980s. That's irrelevant. It's both a red herring and an ad hominem attack. You know this. The question is: did we sell them any after 1991, after the international sanctions specifically preventing any of that kind of sale sold to Iraq. I don't think we did. But there's evidence to suggest the French, German, Russians, and Chinese might have. Either way, we know they have such WMDs. And that's the only relevant point. Admitting that we know where they came from only adds to the evidence that they do have them.

If you want more accurate data, here's a breakdown of total weapons sales to Iraq. It links to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

In order to satisfy my personal vanity, sometimes I just google around a bit after the traces of my unimpressive performances. Thus I came across the very impressive website Ciao! and the comments thereon about Decherf's and my presentation on March 14.
First of all, perhaps both of us should be a bit careful about bold statements: Bamm! full stop.
For instance: "I took careful notes." Perhaps. However, I have reasons to believe that Miguel's listening might have been selective sometimes. And what's, then, the use of careful notes? They remain incomplete.
This, I said that Eastern European States, having just recently regained their sovereignty, are, therefore, proud of it and (unlike the "old" Europe) not yet used to -- to give it up--

I remember to have added that they possibly for this reason have a lot of sympathy for an absolute notion of sovereignty like the US. I may add that in "old" Europe up to two thirds of legislation in any Member State are no more being passed nationally but in Brussels! And it is that, what the "new" Europe is not yet used to but will get used to because they are democracies.
Furthermore, I said that there already -- some who question -- the relevance of the US. From the context I thought that it should have been quite clear that I myself do not pose that question and can, therefore, live with the conclusion of not being realistic! I continue to believe that the U

! I continue to believe that the UN is more relevant than ever and that all States on Earth should do their very best to keep it that way.
Finally, as to the question of installing a democracy by military conquest I think Marco's comments got my point very well: It hardly was, if ever, successful without the people's support! I remember having referred to democratic movements in Germany already since the revolutions back in 1830 and 1848, and having at the end concluded: "Democracy wasn't foisted upon us by US-GIs." I stick to that and add, that Germans after their experiences with monarchy and autocracy in the first half of the 20th century were at long last in their vast majority embracing democracy fullhearted

fullheartedly. If it makes Miguel feel better: Military conquest might have been a sort of catalyst in Germany's case, speeding up a process that was going to start anyway after that devastating catstrophe with dictatorship. In that sense I stick to my thesis that military conquest was not instrumental and, to be a bit more careful now, that you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example in history where democracy was sucessfully and sustainably installed by military force alone. The very word democracy means "rule by the people". Without the people one just cannot install their rule: a contradiction in terms!

I appreciate your comments. However, I still disagree w/ what you said on two significant fronts. First, your statement that the Eastern European states aren't "used to" using their sovereignty is condescending. Second, the continual refusal to admit that a democracy was indeed placed in Germany (and Japan) by force. Sure, there soon developed a democratic culture in those countries. But there's no reason to believe that the same isn't possible in Iraq. Either way, it's still an irrefutable historical FACT that Germany's democracy was imposed by force - w/ French involvement, I might add.

Military conquest was more than a "catalyst" for German democracy. To say anything other than democracy by imposition is ridiculous. You yourself flaunted your personal relationship w/ Sam Huntington. Read page 40 of "The Third Wave". He lists Germany as a clear case of democracy by imposition.

W/o a world war - which Germany started and subsequently lost - the Nazi regime wouldn't have been toppled. By 1939 there certainly wasn't any credible opposition to the regime. Totalitarian regimes rarely allow them.

Sorry, your notes ar not correct: it was Decherf who referred to a personal acquaintance with Huntington, not me. Apart from that: Huntington is certainly not the best authority on Germany.