Cuaderno De Documentacion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SECRETARIA DE ESTADO DE ECONOMÍA, MINISTERIO DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE POLÍTICA ECONÓMICA DE ECONOMÍA SUBDIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ECONOMÍA INTERNACIONAL CUADERNO DE DOCUMENTACION Número 43 Alvaro Espina Vocal Asesor 22 de Abril 2003 CUADERNO DE DOCUMENTACIÓN 22042003 43 Guerra de Irak: (VIII) 1.- Foreign Affairs May/June 2003, Vol 82, Number 3. Issue Highlight: “The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus” by Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal "Why the Security Council Failed" by Michael Glennon “How to Build a Democratic Iraq” By Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha “A Trusteeship for Palestine?” Martin Indyk “Is Turkey Ready for Europe?” by Michael S. Teitelbaum and Philip L. Martin ………………………………………………………………………………………Página 3 2.- Informe completo días 10, 11, 14, 16 y 17 de abril - April 17, 2003 MIDEAST ROADMAP: IRAQ WAR OPENS 'WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY' FOR PEACE .………………………………………….. Página 9 - April 16, 2003 IRAQ: THE HUNT FOR 'STUBBORNLY ELUSIVE' WMD…P. 27 - April 14, 2003 POST-IRAQ: SYRIA IS LIKELY 'NEXT VICTIM' OF U.S. 'IMPERIALISM' ……………………………………………………………Página 40 - April 10, 2003 DEATHS OF JOURNALISTS: SUSPICION U.S. ATTACKS WERE 'NO ACCIDENT' 1,? ……………………………………………...…... Página 61 - April 10, 2003 FALL OF BAGHDAD 'IMPRESSIVE' BUT 'TROUBLING' ………………………………………………………………………... Página 76 3.- Brookings Iraq Reports días 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 y 18 de abril ............................................................. ........................Página 99 1 TheNew National Security Strategy: Focus on Failed States by Susan E. Rice………………………………………………………… Página 111 4.- American Outlook Today, días 15, y 16 de abril …...................................................………… Página 117 5.- San Francisco Chronicle, The pictures of the war ……….................................................................. Página 123 “Plan for democracy in Iraq may be folly. Experts also question U.S. ability to reform entire Middle East”, by James Sterngold, ..................... Página 131 6.- American Enterprise Institute Bird's Eye, by Radek Sikorski .................…..…....……….....…Página 136 Economic Shock Therapy—A Prescription for the Middle East? Lessons of Post-communist Transformations ……….…………...……Página 139 Political War Can Remove Terror Masters in Syria and Iran .…....…Página 141 A Peaceful Approach to Regime Change ………………………..….…Página 148 Why We Need a Democratic Iraq ……………………………….…..…Página 151 Background paper AEI Studies in Public Opinion: American Public Opinion on the War on Terrorism……………………………………………….…….....…Página 156 2 May/June 2003 Vol 82, Number 3 The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal Once marginal, morality has now become a major force in foreign policy. For all the problems this development raises, the United States and the world are better off. Why the Security Council Failed Michael J. Glennon One thing the current Iraq crisis has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth century--the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed. As Washington showed, nations need consider not whether armed intervention abroad is legal, merely whether it is preferable to the alternatives. The structure and rules of the UN Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower. How to Build a Democratic Iraq Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha What follows the war in Iraq will be at least as important as the war itself. Nurturing democracy there after Saddam won't be easy. But it may not be impossible either. Iraq has several assets doing for it, including an educated middle class and a history of political pluralism under an earlier monarchy. A Trusteeship for Palestine? Martin Indyk The Bush administration's plan for Middle East peace is a road map to nowhere. A more ambitious approach will be necessary to parlay the bounce from a successful Iraq war into serious Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The time has come to consider the notion of a trusteeship for Palestine. Is Turkey Ready for Europe? Michael S. Teitelbaum and Philip L. Martin Brussels has delayed a decision on whether to admit Turkey to the EU. This caution is wise: it may aggravate the Turks, but no one really knows what consequences accession would bring, and Turkey has yet to achieve Europe's economic standards. History suggests that open borders would bring a flood of Turks northward looking for better jobs--a negative development for all the countries involved. 3 The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus Leslie H. Gelb and Justine A. Rosenthal From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003 Summary: Once marginal, morality has now become a major force in foreign policy. For all the problems this development raises, the United States and the world are better off. In the space of a few weeks recently, here's what happened on the international morality and values front: Madeleine Albright testified at a Bosnian war crimes tribunal, the State Department's chief policy planner argued that promoting democracy was one of the most important reasons to go to war with Iraq, and a top Bush administration diplomat traveled to Xinjiang to examine China's treatment of its Muslim citizens. The news stories were routine and unremarkable -- which is what was remarkable. A former secretary of state at a war crimes trial. Democracy for Iraq. Beijing allowing a U.S. human rights official to check out its domestic policies. Such events occur regularly now with little comment, no snickering from "realists," indeed with little disagreement. Something quite important has happened in American foreign policymaking with little notice or digestion of its meaning. Morality, values, ethics, universal principles -- the whole panoply of ideals in international affairs that were once almost the exclusive domain of preachers and scholars -- have taken root in the hearts, or at least the minds, of the American foreign policy community. A new vocabulary has emerged in the rhetoric of senior government officials, Republicans and Democrats alike. It is laced with concepts dismissed for almost 100 years as "Wilsonian." The rhetoric comes in many forms, used to advocate regime change or humanitarian intervention or promote democracy and human rights, but almost always the ethical agenda has at its core the rights of the individual. This development of morality cannot be seen simply as a postmodern version of the "white man's burden," although it has that tenor in some hands. These values are now widely shared around the world by different religions and cultures. Movements for democracy or justice for war crimes are no longer merely American or Western idiosyncrasies. And although some in America's foreign-policy community may still be using moral language to cloak a traditional national security agenda, one gets the sense that the trend is more than that. In the past, tyrants supported by Washington did not have to worry a lot about interference in their domestic affairs. Now, even if Washington needs their help, some price has to be exacted, if only sharp public criticism. Moral matters are now part of American politics and the politics of many other nations. They are rarely, even in this new age, the driving forces behind foreign policy, but they are now a constant force that cannot be overlooked when it comes to policy effectiveness abroad or political support at home. THE EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA The moral phenomenon we are now witnessing did not materialize out of whole cloth. It evolved over time, in fits and starts, solidifying only in the last 30 years. From the dawn of human history, there have been laws about the initiation and conduct of war. The ancient Egyptians and the fourth century BC Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu set out rules on how and why to begin wars and how those wars should be fought. Saint Augustine argued . 4 Why the Security Council Failed Michael J. Glennon From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2003 Summary: One thing the current Iraq crisis has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth century-- the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed. As Washington showed, nations need consider not whether armed intervention abroad is legal, merely whether it is preferable to the alternatives. The structure and rules of the UN Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower. SHOWDOWN AT TURTLE BAY "The tents have been struck," declared South Africa's prime minister, Jan Christian Smuts, about the League of Nations' founding. "The great caravan of humanity is again on the march." A generation later, this mass movement toward the international rule of law still seemed very much in progress. In 1945, the League was replaced with a more robust United Nations, and no less a personage than U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull hailed it as the key to "the fulfillment of humanity's highest aspirations." The world was once more on the move. Earlier this year, however, the caravan finally ground to a halt. With the dramatic rupture of the UN Security Council, it became clear that the grand attempt to subject the use of force to the rule of law had failed. In truth, there had been no progress for years. The UN's rules governing the use of force, laid out in the charter and managed by the Security Council, had fallen victim to geopolitical forces too strong for a legalist institution to withstand. By 2003, the main question facing countries considering whether to use force was not whether it was lawful. Instead, as in the nineteenth century, they simply questioned whether it was wise. The beginning of the end of the international security system had actually come slightly earlier, on September 12, 2002, when President George W. Bush, to the surprise of many, brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm.