IOUs
posted in General |IOUs
Foreign Policy as practiced by the major nations on earth can loosely be described as an ongoing exchange of IOUs. Either that or a process of reciprocal “back scratching”. Generally, it is not a clear case of winners and losers, despite the pronouncements of “near term implications” and “long term implications” by the policy wonks inside the Beltway. But if you decide to bet on the outcome of foreign policy manuevers, the best advice is to place your money on the guys with the largest number of chips on the table.
A year ago, we tried mightily to get the UN to muscle-up against Saddam via UN Resolution 1441. We had every reason to believe that we had the support of the big players to bring down Saddam, but then the French, Germans and Russians sandbagged us. So we had to go alone. Now that we have won militarily, we face the twin tasks of mopping up the insurgents and rebuilding Iraq. Not easy.
Not long ago, Congress approved $87 Billion of US taxpayer money to undertake and complete these tasks. The first big chunk, $18 Billion, will be devoted to projects where competitive bidding will be required. George Bush has made it clear that the eligible bidders will NOT include the French, Germans, or Russians — and they are outraged. I say, tough darts, guys, and hooray for you, George. By what conceivable reasoning would George Bush throw a big financial package to any of these 3 after they refused to do the dirty work and yanked the rug out from under us at the last minute? Should we reward our friends, or the three sandbaggers?
I don't think George Bush will have any trouble explaining his choice to the US Taxpayers. Could excluding the French, Germans and Russians hurt our foreign policy long range? Maybe. It just depends on who needs who the most. And as long as those three refuse to forgive the Iraqi debt owed to them , George has a very strong hand. And all of this before Saddam begins to talk.
Hang in there, George.