US Heavily Pressed Allies On War, Book Says
UNITED NATIONS - In the months leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pushed for the recall of UN envoys that resisted US pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.
The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting “bitterness” and “deep mistrust” in Washington’s relations with allies in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, wrote Heraldo Munoz, Chile’s ambassador to the United Nations, in his book “A Solitary War: A Diplomat’s Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons,” set for publication next month.
“In the aftermath of the invasion, allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked and even punished” for their refusal to back a UN resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein’s government, Munoz wrote.
But the tough talk dissipated as the war effort worsened and President Bush came to reach out to many of the same allies that he had spurned. Munoz’s account suggests the US strategy backfired in Latin America, damaging the administration’s standing in a region that has long been dubious of US military intervention.
Munoz details key roles by Chile and Mexico, the Security Council’s two Latino members at the time, in the run-up to the war. Then-UN ambassadors Juan Gabriel Valdes of Chile and Adolfo Aguilar Zinser of Mexico helped thwart US and British efforts to rally support among the council’s six undecided members for a resolution authorizing the US-led invasion.
The book portrays Bush personally prodding the leaders of those six governments - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan - to support the war resolution, a strategy aimed at demonstrating broad support for US military plans, despite France’s looming threat to veto the resolution.
In the weeks preceding the war, Bush made several appeals to Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and Mexican President Vicente Fox to rein in their diplomats and support US war aims. “We have problems with your ambassador at the UN,” Bush told Fox at a summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in Los Cabos, Mexico, in late 2002.
“It’s time to bring up the vote, Ricardo. We’ve had this debate too long,” Bush told the Chilean president on March 11, 2003.
“Bush had referred to Lagos by his first name, but as the conversation drew to a close and Lagos refused to support the resolution as it stood, Bush shifted to a cool and aloof ‘Mr. President,’ ” Munoz wrote. “Next Monday, time is up,” Bush told Lagos.
Senior US diplomats sought to thwart a last-minute attempt by Chile to broker a compromise that would delay military action for weeks, providing Iraq with a final shot at demonstrating that it had fully complied with its disarmament requirements.
On March 14, 2003, less than one week before the eventual invasion, Chile hosted a meeting of diplomats from the six undecided governments to discuss its proposal. But US ambassador John Negroponte and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell moved quickly to quash the initiative, warning their governments that the effort was viewed as “an unfriendly act” designed to isolate the United States. In the days after the invasion, the National Security Council’s top Latin American specialist , John Maistos, invited Munoz to the White House to convey the message to Lagos, that his country’s position at the United Nations had jeopardized prospects for the speedy Senate ratification of a free-trade pact. “Chile has lost some influence,” he said. “President Bush is truly disappointed with Lagos, but he is furious with Fox.”
Munoz said subsequent ties remained tense at the United Nations, where the United States sought support for resolutions authorizing the occupation of Iraq. He said that small countries met privately in a secure room at the German mission. Munoz said that threats of reprisals were short-lived as Washington quickly found itself reaching out to Chile, Mexico, and other countries to support Iraq’s postwar rehabilitation. The US-Chilean free trade agreement, while delayed, was finally signed by Zoellick in June 2003.
© 2008 The Washington Post
Why is the Washington Post just now publishing this information which first appeared in Mother Jones in 2003? Wake up folks. This is more distraction designed to lead the conversation away from the things we need to deal with now. This is ridiculous to follow as a valid story now. The question we should be asking now is how to get out of Iraq without leaving many more innocent civilians dead in the wake of our withdrawal.
I assume that none of this comes as a surprise to any American who is conscious. It is a well known fact that President Bush doesn’t like anyone to disagree with him about anything, certainly not with his longtime plans to eliminate Saddam Hussein and gain control of Iraq’s oil and central geographic position in the Middle East. Munoz’s book will simply reconfirm that the President of the United States is a bully and a thug in a white collar. The required action is quite simple, impeachment for treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. Since the US Congress lacks the courage and grit to do that perhaps Chile and Mexico could lead the United Nations in censuring the United States government for such high crimes as the unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Iraq.
Back when at least part of the world made sense, the daily press was the first rough draft of history, monthly magazines provided a more comprehensive (but still early) draft, current events books constituted a more-or-less contemporaneous analysis, and (capital H) History eventually weighed in.
More recently, books and magazine articles provide the first draft(s), the daily press is late to the party or AWOL entirely, and History is often just an abstract aspiration.
Ignorance (= strength), brought to you by the Fourth Estate (now under new ownership).
…and Powell used threats and bribes to get the New American War Crime of the Century underway. Conservative Christian diplomacy?
As a Canadian who watched the lead up to the Iraq invasion with disbelief I should not be surprised that impeachment is “off the table”. Why would you want to admit now that you took part in an illeagle invasion and occupation, that your country’s leaders are guilty of war crimes and that the majority of Americans were tricked into thinking that somehow Sadam had something to do with 9/11. How fucking stupid can a nation be?
Must have been too much good stuff on tv that week.
Enough America bashing already. We have a similar NONinterest in how the world really works up here in Canada as well. Our guy, steve, has been using George’s model of how to get things done with much gusto.
A lot of people here in Canada were not fond of our former leader, John whatever his name was. I’ll say one thing for the guy, he will go down in the history books as having said fuck you to George Bush when he was asked whether we were part of the solution or part of the problem.
Our current leader makes me puke. Had that fuck been in power in the lead up to the Iraq invasion we would be up to our necks in the big muddy with our American cousins right now.
Why has the presidential debate down there not centered on the disaster some people are still calling a war?
If George and his buddies get away with the shit they have done good luck to you guys with your next presidnets.
And this is actually news to somebody?
“….The question we should be asking now is how to get out of Iraq without leaving many more innocent civilians dead in the wake of our withdrawal….”
Well I suppose another 100,000 or two above the existing 1.2 million dead Iraqi’s and 4 million refugees, will make a real [sic] difference…
Just imagine China illegally invading and occupying the US for China’s so-called National Security to steal America’s mineral resources….then killing say 9 million Americans mostly civilians and creating say 25 million internal and external refugees….
Gulp….Gasp….wheres that impeachment petition?
It was a lot less strong-arm tactic from the USA as it was greed from the allies. This is an attempt to vindicate their support of the war but in reality they were alot more willing than the book makes out. England and Australia were especially greedy and gulped up as much profit off the bloodshed as they could. When the Judge comes ’round they will stand accused.
Minister of Defense says Iraq has cost UK £3.1bn
The Iraq war and its aftermath cost the UK almost £3.1bn up to the end of March this year, new figures from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal. Andrew Burgin, from the Stop The War Coalition, said: “It is a huge amount and every pound has been misspent and could have been better spent on schools and hospitals.
“It is a complete waste of money and resources - and a waste of human life on an illegal, unpopular and immoral war.”
In other words their was no PROFIT only international disgrace…. The same applies to Australia where the cost of an estimated $1.8 Billion AUS dollars…and an equal amount of disgrace…
Only to add technically both Tony Blair and John Howard could be tried as War Criminals in Nuremberg style Trials..
I remember the lack of hoopla at the time surrounding news the US was ‘bugging’ everyone’s communications at the time and using the eavesdrops to help with the threatening.
“US Heavily Pressed Allies On War”
Yeah, tell me about it. Prime Minister Chretien’s refusal to join “the coalition of the coerced” cost Canada’s lumber industry 1 billion dollars.
The reality is, that the rich - Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Perle, Howard etc. will never be touched, and that is a travesty.
The very people who caused the war, and profited from it, will probably live out their lives in unimaginable comfort, quite oblivious to the horrors in the Middle East, and certainly far removed from the economic crisis, which is looming over the US and UK.
I am ashamed of being British, and I hate the nature of our foreign policy, which has in turn made many nations hate us.
No this is not news, but if the evidence can be piled higher and higher maybe one or two of the more reasonable Bush-backers will see the light.
All I ever hear about the Palestinians and Israelis from our right-wing leaders, both Republican and Democrats, is that “Israel has the right to defend itself.” If I hear that one more time, I’m going to scream.
Why is it they don’t say that about the innocent Iraqis that have been slaughtered and continue to be murdered by the war criminals in charge of the U.S.? It IS a war crime to attack a country that was no threat, by the way. Iran coming up….
How does the U.S. get away with it?
“……the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pushed for the recall of UN envoys that resisted US pressure to endorse the war,…”
Was it a coalition of the “willing” or a coalition of bribery?
RE: - In the months leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pushed for the recall of UN envoys that resisted US pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.
Well of course! Remember when Belinda Stronach was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party and her sole reason against decriminizing Pot was that doing so would adversely affect export traffic across the border into the US. The US always uses this threat against us - and sometimes this threat is emptier than other times.
RE: - As a Canadian who watched the lead up to the Iraq invasion with disbelief
Strange that Air Farce and 22 Minutes gave a more accurate coverage of the lead up to the Iraq war than much of the American media. Still remember Mary Walsh saying that bombing for peace was a bit like screwing to get one’s virginity back.
RE: - A lot of people here in Canada were not fond of our former leader, John whatever his name was.
Jean Cretien said in his memoirs that the Americans never asked - but, at the time, he questioned the air photograph that Cheney showed him saying there were WMDs.
RE: - Our current leader makes me puke.
I think that Sir John A said something similar once. Though, I don’t think one has to be drunk at the time in case of “Leave it to Stever” Harper. Is it just me or do you think that Steve is lying about Cadman, Schreiber, NAFTA-gate etc?
RE: - It was a lot less strong-arm tactic from the USA as it was greed from the allies.
Or, as Karlheinz Schreiber would say, business as usual.
RE: - and that the majority of Americans were tricked into thinking that somehow Sadam had something to do with 9/11
Some still believe that - many of those planning to vote for McCain do.
Vaudree: “Some still believe that - many of those planning to vote for McCain do.”
I quite agree Vaudree, and a lot of those same people will believe Bush and McCain when they make so called gaffes concerning Iran.
The latest comments regarding Iran and Al Quaeda, and Iran openly stating that they wanted nuclear weapons to destroy another country, would be dismissed as ridiculous, if spoken by any other people, but when you are talking about Bush and McCain, the comments are depressing and disturbing.
I can only imagine the economic threats which loomed over the smaller nations at the UN. With the larger nations such as the UK and Australia, I would have thought bribery was the order of the day - just thinking out loud here, but if a leader was really clever and assured the US of a vote, then he could find himself a good retirement job - President of Europe maybe, highly paid consultant position in a large financial institution, or maybe an envoy in a place like the Middle East, where he is known and loved. This is all conjecture of course, and it could never happen in real life - could it?
rjmart01 March 24th, 2008 11:14 a.m.:
“More recently, books and magazine articles provide the first draft(s), the daily press is late to the party or AWOL entirely, and History is often just an abstract aspiration.”
precisely assessed
Gail and AndyUK - sometimes it is hard to figure out where coercion stops and bribery starts. Personally, I think that Blair was after a bit of the old glory (as well as a few juicy contracts).
Would you like to see Britannia
Rule again, my friend?
All you have to do is follow the worms.
Never be ashamed to be who you are and never let those in power define what it means to be you.
4,000 of those serving in the official American Military are dead as of yesterday. We don’t know how many contractors (unofficial US Military) or Iraqi civilians are dead though ten to twenty times that number is probably a good estimate.
Did anyone read Naomi Klein’s book, Shock Doctrine yet? Seems that the war in Iraq was about WMD - we come in, we destroy, we recreate in our own image.
Whose planning to follow the Schreiber inquiry when it starts? Karlheinz Schreiber has promised to hold a Kindergarten for the naive.
Think there may be some overlap between the book and the inquiry.
1. Vicente Fox Resisted Bush the Murderer.
2. Then lost a Stolen, Fraud-Plagued election, (CIA)
3. Halliburton just ‘got’ a $700,000,000 contract w/ PEMEX.
And “Dick’s” Halliburton salary and stock IS intact. And has been. Just ’set’ aside until he’s out of office.
I am sorry to see that a lot of our American friends, still think us Canadians are traitors for not blindly following the neocon/MIC into an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of a country that posed ABSOLUTELY NO threat to anyone let alone the USA.
Guess we better really watch our backs here ..seeing as how the USA imports more oil from us than anywhere in the ME
So much for the Coaltion of the Willing.
Remember what happened with Jim Moran suggested that the Israel Lobby was putting pressure on Congress to wage the war?
Documentary The Israel lobby - The influence of AIPAC on US Foreign Policy
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.“ ~ George Washington
Did anyone else here watch “Bush’s War” on PBS’s Frontline last night? What a tangle of stupidity, illdirected, lying mess this war has been. PBS did a good job of going through the scenario. It continues tonight.
Did anyone else here watch “Bush’s War” on PBS’s Frontline last night? What a tangle of stupidity, illdirected, lying mess this war has been. PBS did a good job of going through the scenario. It continues tonight.
I don’t have a TV, but I might watch it if they have it online. Do they mention the essential roles of Douglass J. Feith and Stephen E. Herbits, along with their close ties to Israel?
The bush White House is loaded with thugs and criminals. That hornet’s nest needs to be cleaned out, lined up, and marched off to the Hague.
I don’t know why people are so hesitant to grab these low-lifes right by the scruff of their necks-cuff em’-and march em’ out the door.
Criminals should be treated like criminals. Working in the White House does not mean you are exempt. It is only your current place of employment-and therefore subject to change.
“marched off to the Hague.” A globalist’s wet dream.