Wifey
Cancer
Smiley
 
California
Posts: 2,479
APPD 0.31
Post Rank: 26
|
 |
Posted: Feb. 18 2003,1:30 pm |
Post # 1 |
   |
Educating Ourselves with Facts...
...rather then from gossip infused media. Below is an unbiased list of countries and their stand points in regards to 'going to war with Iraq'
Broadly or fully pro-war countries
• UK: The most pro-US European nation. The UK is fully committed to military action - if necessary, without a further UN resolution. Thousands of British troops have already been dispatched to the region, although PM Tony Blair continues to stress that war is not inevitable. The UK might back extra time for the inspectors, but only a matter of weeks.
• Spain: Spain has been backing the hardline US position and would support a Washington-led conflict even without a further UN resolution. It says Iraq has respected none of the conditions set by the Security Council, and that Baghdad "beats the world record for human rights violations." Spanish FM Ana Palacio has also said the situation is Iraq is "inextricably linked" to the problem of terrorism. Spain has a vote on the UN Security Council, but could not veto a war even if it wanted to.
• Italy: Silvio Berlusconi, strongly pro-US in his general outlook, says UN officials must be given time to finish their job. But he is expected to support the US in the event of a military campaign, even without further UN resolutions. Mr Berlusconi is keen for EU and US to reach unity, warning it would be a "calamity" if there was a damaging split. Italy also suggests an Italian-Spanish-British axis to rival the Franco-German axis.
• Denmark: The Danish Government would support a war sanctioned by a fresh UN resolution, but has also strongly suggested that it would back a US-initiated conflict. Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen says existing UN resolutions give the green light for war, if Iraq does not fall in line with the call for disarmament.
• Netherlands: The Dutch are seen as being fairly close to the US-British position, although the country has been distracted by a general election. The Christian Democrats of Jan Peter Balkenende have retained their role as the biggest Dutch party and are expected to line up behind the US and UK.
'New Europe'
• Czech Republic: The Czechs are the only nation of the "new Europe" to commit troops to the Gulf. The Czech army specialises in combating chemical weapons: it has had one unit of anti-chemical troops in Kuwait since last March, and another unit is likely to join them. The US has also asked permission for coalition forces to pass through Czech territory and airspace. Parliament will have the final say, but the Czech Republic gave similar assistance during the first Gulf War in 1991, and is unlikely to raise objections this time.
• Poland: Poland has not yet committed any troops, but it is possibly Washington's most enthusiastic cheerleader in Central Europe. The foreign minister has repeatedly pledged Poland's support for a war in the Gulf, with or without UN approval. Poland is still somewhat mistrustful of the European powers. Although Germany helped Poland get into the EU, the Poles still look to America for real military muscle, at least until some plausible European defense structure emerges.
• Hungary: Hungary is allowing the US to use the Taszar airbase in the south of the country to train up to 3,000 Iraqi dissidents as interpreters, administrators and guides. The Hungarians insist that Taszar cannot be used for combat training, although the Iraqis will be trained to use small arms for self-defense purposes. In the past, Taszar has been used as a logistics base for Nato operations in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo.
• Bulgaria: As it prepares to join Nato next year, Bulgaria is anxious to prove its credentials as an American ally. Bulgaria has been holding talks with the US about using its airbases, and is making contingency plans to accept up to 10,000 refugees from Iraq. Bulgaria is on the UN Security Council, although without the power of veto. It would like to see a peaceful resolution to the crisis, but could probably be persuaded to back a war without a second UN resolution.
• Slovakia: As a Nato member-in-waiting, Slovakia has been formally asked by the US to take part in a multinational coalition in the event of war. But agreeing to help could put pressure on Slovakia's Nato aspirations, possibly boosting a "no" vote in a membership referendum later this year. Public opinion is already finely balanced, and a war in Iraq could tip it into opposition. The same is true for Slovenia, where a Nato referendum is due on 23 March - although no request for military help has been made.
Broadly or fully anti-war countries
• Germany: The Germans, governed by a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, are strongly against military intervention. Germany has said it will not vote for war in the UN Security Council, although it does not have the power of veto. Its lack of support is seen as a major disappointment to Washington, a traditionally close ally. Public opinion is strongly anti-war, a factor which Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder tapped into as he narrowly won re-election in September.
• France: France, with Germany, is heading the EU's anti-war contingent. France has the power of veto on the UN Security Council. But despite pledging with Germany that he will not back a war, President Jacques Chirac has not explicitly said that he would veto one either. Both countries might abstain if it came to a vote. In the meantime, France wants more time for UN inspectors to complete their work, possibly several months longer.
• Russia: Russia is strongly in favor of continuing to pursue diplomatic channels. It says there is no evidence that would justify a war. It is also vehement that the UN Security Council, not the US, must have supremacy. However, President Vladimir Putin has warned Baghdad that Russia, its old ally, could turn against it if Iraq "starts to present problems for inspectors". Russia has the power of veto on the UN Security Council.
• Greece: Greece currently holds the EU's rotating presidency, and is very keen to steer the EU away from backing a war. The Greeks also have the unenviable task of trying to weld the divided Europe into something approaching a unified force on the issue. They have managed to produce a statement agreed by all 15 foreign ministers, urging Iraq to comply "without delay" with weapons inspections, and hinting at the need for the inspectors to be given more time to complete their work.
Not listed in that article are the following countries:
Austria: Does not support at this time
Portugal: Supports
Solvenia: Supports
Romania: Supports
...Here are some more countries and their stand point at this time:
MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
Syria
Has traditionally opposed Saddam Hussein and sent forces to the Gulf War in 1991. It is highly unlikely to do so again, as it views military action as part of an attempt to install puppet regimes in the region to serve US and Israeli interests.
"We want a peaceful solution to save the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We ask: are the obstacles to inspections insurmountable, and do they truly deserve a destructive war? Iraq does not constitute a threat to its neighbours. No to war, yes to a peaceful resolution based on resolution 1441," Syria's UN ambassador Mikhail Wehbe has said
Israel
Israel strongly backed the US objectives of disarming Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein - with or without United Nations backing.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said Israel will retaliate unilaterally if attacked with chemical and biological weapons
Jordan
With a large Palestinian population and a border with Iraq, Jordan has vociferously opposed military action against Iraq.
King Abdullah has argued that the priority should be to settle the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
However, he has also said that a war would be Saddam Hussein's responsibility, suggesting the country may stay neutral if fighting starts.
Jordan is dependent on Iraq for its entire domestic oil needs
Egypt
Along with other Arab states, Cairo called on Iraq to allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors.
President Mubarak, whose country receives $2bn a year in US aid, said Iraq should "seize the opportunity" to "avoid serious repercussions".
Egypt sent troops to fight with the coalition in the Gulf War, but Mr Mubarak has argued that this time the Americans should first tackle the Israeli-Palestinian crisis
Saudi Arabia
Previously said it would allow the US to use its bases for a strike on Iraq - providing the action is endorsed by the UN.
But in early November, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that while his country would co-operate with any UN resolution, it would not allow the US to use its facilities for any attack. He later pulled back from this, and suggested that his government had not decided yet.
During the 1991 Gulf War Saudi Arabia was an active part of the coalition and provided bases and forces for Operation Desert Storm
Iran
Has always had an ambivalent attitude about attacks on Iraq.
At heart, it would be only too delighted to see Saddam Hussein removed.
But it also fears that Washington's plans to attack Iraq are part of a strategic ambition to gain more influence in the Gulf region.
Officially Tehran opposes an attack on Iraq
Kuwait
Was invaded by Iraq a decade ago, triggering the Gulf War.
Kuwait is the strongest regional supporter of plans to topple Saddam Hussein.
As of late January, there were 17,000 US troops in the country. Between 80,000 and 90,000 more are on the way
Bahrain
A key ally of the US in the Gulf, and home to the US Navy's 5th Fleet - almost certainly a key element in any attack on Iraq.
However, Bahrain's King, Sheikh Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, expressed his "determined opposition to any unilateral military action against Iraq".
Qatar
With Kuwait, it would probably be the second major base for any American invasion. It provided an airbase in 1991.
But in the meantime, Qatar, like other Gulf states, would prefer a diplomatic solution to be found
China
China has said that the focus should be on pursuing weapons inspections and not on military action against Saddam Hussein's regime. China has argued that there is no justification for military action and that inspections should continue.
Responding to Washington's presentation of evidence on Iraqi non-compliance, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said: "UN weapons inspectors are not in a position to draw conclusions and they have suggested continuing the inspections. We should respect their views and support the continuation of their work."
Japan
Japan was a key source of finance for the US during the Gulf War but it is cautious about supporting a new war.
Prime Minister Koizumi said: "The use of force is a last resort where there is no other options."
Japan is banned under its pacifist constitution from using force to settle international disputes.
It passed a controversial anti-terrorist law to enable it to provide logistical support to the US-led military operations in Afghanistan, but this would not cover similar involvement in Iraq.
Australia
Australia has sent its first troops to the Gulf region for a possible war on Iraq.
Prime Minister John Howard insisted that the deployment of 350 troops did not mean that Australia had decided to support any war with Iraq, but rather that the pre-positioning of forces increased the "likelihood of the crisis being resolved peacefully".
There have been angry public protests against the demonstration
Non-permanent UN members
Of the current non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, Spain and Bulgaria back the US and UK position on Iraq, while Germany and Syria are both strongly opposed to military action.
It is not yet clear how the other non-permanent members - Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan – might vote.
A Security Council resolution requires nine votes in favour and no vetoes to be passed. The US, UK, France, Russia and China have the power of veto
We must also take into consideration, how do these various countries benefit (or not) the USA? Is their airspace needed? Do they have a military that is worth while to the USA? Could they pose a threat without their support? Does the country's support (or lack of) realistically do anything one way or the other for the USA? When they are not in support of the USA, does it mean they are nuetral, could be supportive at a future date or does it mean they are in support of Iraq?
|
11-23-2024 Gas price in your area (Rep.#7,276) from: stingray
