Coalition-Building à la Shakespeare

By Ian Williams

At the end of March, a Wall St. Journal column about the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” by Condoleezza Rice opened with the words,“Nearly fifty countries…”According to the headline, however, there were “More than Fifty Countries.”

Exaggeration, it seems, is such an integral part of coalition-building that one can only rephrase Shakespeare on greatness: Some are bought into coalition, others are coerced into it, but most have had it thrust upon them.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell first announced on March 18 that there were 30 countries in the “coalition of the willing,” he also referred to “15 other nations, for one reason or another, who do not wish to be publicly named, but will be supporting the coalition.” By that weekend, he had managed to build the “willing” list to 46 named allies.

In fact, the list resembles the so-called “evidence” of Iraqi misdeeds that Powell presented to the Security Council. Upon closer scrutiny, it collapses like a deflated freedom soufflé.

The official State Department roster of the 30 states reads as follows:Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Britain and Uzbekistan.

The additions included some of the world’s smallest countries. They were: Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.

Showing the fluidity of the list, Slovenia actually was rewarded with cash in the congressional war appropriations for being a member of the coalition. This provoked mass demonstrations and a public denial by the government, whose prime minister, Anton Rop, told the press,“When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake, as we are not a member of the coalition.”

It appears the definition of “war” as God’s way of teaching Americans geography had not progressed beyond the first grade level. It’s not until second grade that students learn the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia.

In another fluid category entirely are the unnamed Arab states—Bahrain, Djibouti and Qatar—which actually are providing facilities for the invasion. As Arab League members, however, they need to be circumspect about open support for the invasion. Although the war was immensely popular in Kuwait until the Iraqi missiles began landing on their side of the border, it is odd that that emirate could be named only after the military assault from their territory had begun.

Conversely, one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the invasion is, of course, Israel. But even this most diplomatically challenged of administrations can see that boasting of Israeli support does not add international luster to its cause.

Oddly enough, the original list did not include Bulgaria. There are several reasons for the startling omission, however. To begin with, the Bulgarian president and the leading opposition party both oppose the war, and claim that the cabinet took the decision without consulting parliament—even though the U.S. paid $1.7 billion to buy Iraq’s pre-Gulf war debt to Bulgaria.

Interestingly enough, many of the coalition countries are exactly those who were weak enough to be bullied into signing bilateral treaties with the United States to exempt it from the International Criminal Court.

To begin with, there are the three former Pacific Trust territories whose entire budget depends on the U.S. Congress, and whose treaties put their entire defense and a significant say in their foreign policy in the hands of Washington. They are the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. Their total population is probably less than the number of British and American troops now on the Kuwaiti border.

Even though the administration does not have much regard for consistency, it is difficult to question the rights of small countries like Angola or Guinea to vote on the Security Council and then crow about the support of Palau, which is a few square miles in the middle of nowhere that can, at best, lob a few coconuts at Iraq if asked nicely.

In the case of the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Honduras: Those Central American republics are also the only ones to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, so perhaps they are acting as diplomatic surrogates for Ariel Sharon. The Dominican foreign minister resigned when the president, who had declined to announce support himself, fingered his most junior and expendable cabinet minister to declare support.

Nicaragua knows very well that defying Washington is likely to lead to terrorist mines in one’s harbors, so it makes sense to avoid terrorism by appeasing the most likely perpetrator. Panama, of course, is well aware of the benefits of American invasions and just wants to share the good news—but its presence makes one gasp at the ingratitude of Grenada for sticking with the rest of the Caribbean island states in its opposition.

Portugal is an enthusiastic supporter—so much so that its support was taken for granted. Washington forgot to tell its prime minister that the Azores summit was taking place on his territory, and then had to invite him along to make up for the gaffe. It has now remembered to put Portugal on the list.

Like Bulgaria, Albania (which is contributing 75 soldiers to the war effort), the Czech Republic,Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, RomaniaandSlovakia all either want to join NATO or recently have done so. But they each need American support in case Moscow ever getsfeisty again. So do the former Soviet republics such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan (one of the most vicious and tyrannical regimes outside Iraq). Mongolia, sandwiched between Russia and China, needs any friends it can get, and Singapore, likewise marooned between Malaysia and Indonesia, may be a friend in need at some point. Rwanda has special problems—hating the French even before that became fashionable in the U.S., but with more cause—and also is a signatory of an ICC exemption.

In fact, the U.S. claim of Czech supporthas also been rebutted officially by the prime minister and the president, but such technical details have not impeded the U.S. including them on the list—which makes one wonder: perhaps they are still listed with Slovakia in the White House atlases.

Others of the willing, like South Korea and Japan, are equally dependent on Washington’s whims. Afghanistan is about as likely to buck Washington as Osama bin Laden is to eat a ham sandwich.Colombia needs U.S. military aid to fight the FARC rebel forces. Longtime enemies Eritrea and Ethiopia dare not allow the other to get U.S. support, so both signed on just to be sure.

In other cases, the list seems to be a case of willful exaggeration. It includes, for example, the Netherlands, which has promised a Patriot battery to protect Turkey in case of an Iraqi attack, and so is at best a tangential member of the coalition. Turkey itself refused to allow U.S. troops or airbases but, under pressurefrom its military, agreed to U.S. over-flights. It’s hardly a resounding show of support. Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer recently said, “The United Nations Security Council process on Iraq should have been allowed to finish. I do not find it right that the U.S. behaved unilaterally before that process ended.”Ninety-four percent of Turks agree with him. Even as late as the second week of the war, the Turkish military was refusing to over-ride the elected government and allow U.S. troops through its territory.

The attitude of the Philippines is equally suspect. Although it has U.S. troops fighting “terrorists” within its country, many Filipinos were surprised at being counted in the coalition. According to Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, Manila had not yet cast its lot with the coalition.

The participation of Denmark and Iceland is puzzling, but then Denmark is sending a submarine, so useful in the desert. Its statements of support have been highly ambiguous, and the majority of the Danes, and all the opposition parties, oppose the war.

Perhaps the greatest irony of this list is the human rights record of many of the countries, which seem unlikely allies in any project to build a democratic Iraq. The International Press Institute in Vienna has characterized the list as the “Coalition of the Sinning.” Director Johann Fritz characterized Eritrea and Ethiopia as countries “ruled by totalitarian governments who care little for human rights in general and press freedom in particular.” About Azerbaijan’s media, he said, “the working conditions in this country are nothing short of alarming. It is all too common for journalists to face violence, arbitrary arrest and the political control of the courts.” Fifteen journalists have been murdered in Colombia, making it “the most dangerous country in the world” for the media. In Georgia and Uzbekistan, he said, “the high costs far outweigh the benefits of practicing journalism.”

Finally, we come to the small core of democratic governments who have freely volunteered their services to the cause. There is Italy, which is ruled by Silvio Berlusconi, a political descendant of Mussolini, and Spain, whose premier belongs to Franco’s old party. Both, therefore, have a political precedent for ignoring the will of, for example, the 91 percent of Spanish people and similar number of Italians who oppose the war. Unfortunately, their staunch support does not include the actual sending of troops.

Britain and Australia’s populations also do not like the war. British policy, however, is to counterbalance the U.S. against Europe, and Australia is worried about all those Asians to the north. Both hope that Washington will show due gratitude. Indeed, Howard and Blair probably still believe in the tooth fairy.

So a war that was opposed by the majority of members of the Security Council, the General Assembly and, according to the polls, by the majority of the populations of the so-called coalition’s members—and even by some of its governments—is a war for democracy in the Middle East. But not, perhaps, as we used to know it. —I.W.