NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay the whole Iraq subject has been done to death but still retains interest so I'd like to approach it from another angle - what do people think will be the wider consequences arising from Iraq:

What does it mean for future of the international law, the UN and other multilateral bodies?

How will it affect the US relationship with the rest of the world, in particular Europe and the Middle East?

Are we more at risk from terrorism now than we were before the war?

Is it indicative of current US foreign policy and will this change in years to come?

I believe that international law and the UN have been weakened and will continue to be weakened by future US/UK actions.

The effects on global alliances are likely to become more far-reaching as time passes. It is obvious that US and EU political cultures will be increasingly at odds with each other, and I hope that the EU will unite sufficiently in the future to become a global pole of power in its own right.

The Middle East will continue to be oppressed for another half century by everyone because we all need their oil. US foreign policy will be increasingly geared towards maintaining the status quo in the face of shifting demographics, while European foreign policy is more likely to be the more subtle pursuit of preferential deals. A conflict of interests is inevitable, since the two will be competing on the global stage for the same resources.

Iraq is just one resource war of many to come. We can expect them to become a regular feature of international relations, and eventually be conducted openly, without pretexts.

So in summary, the consequences of the Iraq are quite destabilising for the world, but it should be viewed as an element of a wider emerging dynamic, rather than a unique and isolated event.

Okay the whole Iraq subject has been done to death but still retains interest so I'd like to approach it from another angle - what do people think will be the wider consequences arising from Iraq:

What does it mean for future of the international law, the UN and other multilateral bodies?
The US invasion of Iraq circumvented the UN process and technically violates the UN Charter. This move could significantly impact the very future of the UN. There also may be charges brought against the US for violations of international law, but I am sure that if that does come to pass, it will be after some type of provisional government is operational in Iraq.

The US invasion also created a stir within NATO, especially in regards to the possibility of US troop deployment in Turkey.



How will it affect the US relationship with the rest of the world, in particular Europe and the Middle East?

I seriously believe that US relations with the rest of the world has been negatively impacted. Only time will tell how much damage has been done. Many of the US's traditional allies did not join want to go into Iraq without UN approval and for good reason. Many would look upon this US move as an imperialistic endeavour rather than an effort to root out terrorists.



Are we more at risk from terrorism now than we were before the war?

Personally speaking I do believe that this has increased terrorist activities and invites more retaliation from a hostile Muslim world.



Is it indicative of current US foreign policy and will this change in years to come?

I believe that the US is flexing its' muscle and wants to be a global enterprise. I personally don't think that the policy will be that successful considering the area of the world that the US chose to inject itself into. The Middle East has been a hotbed and now it is even hotter. Iraq is surrounded by countries that have very little use for the US way of doing things, i.e. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Also factor in the nearby Israel/Palestinian situation and that Afghanistan and Lebanon are not too far away.

Should be interesting?

The United Nations was already a highly flawed organisation anyway, and become increasingly outdated in practise if not philosophy after the Cold War. It has been accused as merely serving to rubber stamp American foreign policy, or a place for third world countries to try and twist the arms of the major powers. There is some validity to both claims.

The UN has failed it's Peace With Teeth remit and dissolved into a shadow of the League of Nations, the lessons seemingly unlearnt. This is not to deny the good work the UN has achieved in the past 60 years, but increasingly the flaws in the organisaton were growing bigger. The invasion of Iraq just tore a larger hole.

In terms of foreign policy, the US and UK have now set the example that strikes of pre-emption are justafiable policy. With such a can of worms open, not only are international relations severely set back, there are many possible repercussions. These scenarios err on the pessamistic, yet we increasingly see signs of them being employed.

Turkey could invade Kurdistan and justify that as a pre-emptive strike against a hostile nation as an example.

Western and Moderate Muslim / Arab relations are strained. It would be the height of ignorance to downplay the role of fundementalist Islam and any leader would need to be strong after the 9/11 attack to carefully handle retaliation but at the same time be thorough in the execution.

Afghanistan was seen by many as justified and neccesary and an appropriate respponse to the attack. Iraq was a step to far however, bogus links with Al'Queda, whereas Pusedo-Islamic Terrorism now flourishes in the post war chaos. Al'Queda has definatly taken control of the situtation and are manipulating it with skill, already probing the weak links in the Coalition. Added to the fact that so many people around the world were aganist their Governments sending troops or support to the Coalitions war efforts.

Global opinion is divided, international relations strained, heightened paranoia reigns. It would be simplistic to blame Mr. Bush for it all, but he has played his part as a puppet... for both sides, quite well.

BUMP (there are enough people who supported the war on this forum and for once they're silent).

The war in Iraq hasn't really effected the UN. It has simply further exposed the UN for what it is. A fine charity and an effective aide organisation but in no way is it a authority in international relations. Any action by the UN demands an almost unreachable conscensus. All parties move to act in thier own interests, whether selfish or idealistic, and during the arguemants the UN is powerless. By the time an agreement is reached the situation is almost always impossible. The UN isssues it's condemnations because at that point it's the only thing that can be done. The UN hasn't been weakened, it's always been weak.

Realations between the US and the Middle-East haven't really been changed either. Those in the Middle-East who worked with the Us before the war continue to do so. Those in the Middle-East who seek to destroy the US continue to do so. Recent events haven't changed anything yet and that may be the reason why it is folly. But, possibilities exist. The most important in my view is the possibility of something unique in history, an Arab, Muslim republic. If that comes to pass the Middle-East may at last be dragged into the 20th century. I know that would still leave the Middle-East mired in a Bygone era but you have to crawl before you walk.

I think that relations between the US and Europe will be effected. Since WWI and then WWII, the US and Western Europe have been allies. I think the war in Iraq has given all sides a reason to look at the situation and ask why we remain allies.Since the fall of the USSR and the continuing collapse of communism, I can't think of a reason. Culturally, politically and philosophically we are almost always at odds.

As far as US foreign policy is concerned it is difficult to tell where it is heading. Either by large or small degrees US foreign policy changes with every new administration.