Coalition of the willing

Remember Bush's slogan 'the coalition of the willing'? It was meant generally to demarcate those countries who recognized and acted on their responsibilities in the brave new world to fight terrorism wherever it may hide. In particular, it was used to describe those countries willing to support, without a UN resolution, American's invasion of Iraq. By all measures the coalition was anemic.

It was anemic despite our attempts to recruit, by hook or by crook, other nations into the fray. Although many people had suspected this conclusion(most famously, Michael Moore), it is now evidenced by a first-hand account written by Chile's current Ambassador to the UN, Heraldo Munoz. He recounts one subtle tactic to engineer Chilean participation: the free trade agreement between the countries had not been ratified, and evidently was 'at risk' pending Chile's stance towards Iraq. Another account he offers involves Angola: the Millenium Development Goals for this country was similarly 'at risk' pending its stance towards invasion. In the latter case by not the former, avoiding the risk evidently reigned supreme. Munoz is very clear that these 'threats' took a circuitous route, so indirect and subtle so as to allow for denial. There is no smoking gun. To see an interview with Munoz, go here.

However, these types of stories do establish that the deliberations prior to the Iraq war took on considerations quite irrelevant to the goodness or badness of toppling Hussein and terrorism generally. Political realists will scoff at the naivete of those who are surprised by any of this, but for others who have the audacity (stupidity?) to take some of their government's pronouncements at face value, these types of episodes are disappointing and undermining of a faith in democracy.