There’s an old joke about a drunk who is crawling around on all fours under a street lamp searching for something. A guy walks up and asks what he’s doing. He says, ‘ I lost my car keys about a block from here.’ ‘But why are you looking for them here?’ ‘Well, the light’s better here.’
Sometimes I feel like you keep getting on my case about Iraq because I’m the only one willing to respond and debate with you. You can saddle me with the moral responsibility for what happened in Iraq if you like, but I was not involved in the decision-making process (neither in Washington nor Riga). My appearance on Domburs and the article I wrote for DIENA seem to have had a great impact on you, but in all these years since then, no one, other than you and Eriks Stendzenieks has taken me to task for my position.
I still stand by my decision, even if the US policy eventually went awry there. What you call a ‘gross strategic miscalculation’ on Latvia’s part (yes, it did have something to do with NATO) also applies to all the other countries that joined the US coalition. Although you can’t debate in LOL with the leaders of the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Spain, Poland and the others on this issue, I would assume that all the words of moral outrage you direct at me, also apply to the decision-makers of these countries. Either all were duped by Colin Powell, or had more cynical motivations to support the US position. You make it sound like Latvia took the lead on all this, and that I played a pivotal role in the decision-making. You overestimate my importance and influence.
Foreign policy decisions are based on many complex factors, and nothing is ever black and white. No matter which way you go, you lose something and gain something. My personal rationale for supporting the United States at that point in time was not easy, but at the end, the arguments on one side outweighed the arguments on the other. Up until that point in time, the US had provided financial, political and moral support for Latvia on countless issues. This was the first time that the US asked Latvia to take a difficult decision in support of something they needed. The US Government had made a decision they felt was in their national interests, and mounted an argument that this was also in the world’s interests. When I looked at our future NATO and EU allies, their opinions were split. Were the Brits, Dutch and Danes also US lackeys? For me, the final and deciding moral implication of Latvia’s decision was that we were expressing support to the American people, who would be sending their soldiers to Iraq to accomplish something they thought was in the greater good.
You also tend to forget the broader political context of the decision. The American people were traumatized by 9-11 and for a while, a majority felt something had to be done in response and were ready to back their President on this decision. A majority of the US Congress as well. To date, I have never heard an American criticize Latvia for supporting them at this difficult time. To the contrary, US politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, have continuously thanked Latvia for its moral support. Neither Germany nor France (who opposed the US position) have ever changed their policies toward Latvia because of this. (Sure Chirac made a beef, which some French diplomats apologized for later on.) Lastly, our military has been praised by the US, coalition partners and NATO for its professionalism and courage. Since Iraq and Afghanistan, our military, small as it may be, has gained credibility from our allies. They have also gained a lot in pride.
As for Latvia’s broader ‘cred’, you’ve expressed your personal opinion on what it may be. But the NBI did research on Latvia’s image in 2007, interviewing 29,000 people in 38 target countries. One of the questions was “The country behaves responsibly in the areas of international peace and security.” Latvia ranked 26 out of 40 countries. Coalition partners Netherlands and Denmark ranked 5 and 6, and the UK ranked 16th. Below Latvia were Mexico, Israel, South Africa, India, Indonesia, and in 37th place was the United States. Perhaps none of the people interviewed knew anything about Latvia’s position on Iraq. But if so, that only indicates that our ‘cred’ was not affected. In fact, out of the 17 or so questions in the survey, we ranked highest in this one. Clearly, these 29,000 people are not aware of your opinion regarding Latvia’s ‘cred’. And as for the international foreign policy community, diplomats and such who are fully aware of Latvia’s position on Iraq, our credibility hasn’t been affected at all. Since I have regular contact with them, I can vouch for this. In the international community, Latvia’s position on Iraq is a non-issue.
As for Latvia’s need to maintain strong alliances, yes, we have many difficult decisions facing us in the future (as do all small countries that seek to survive.) I sure would love to see an ‘enlightened EU’, but I don’t hear too many voices in Europe that believe such a thing is a near-term reality. What was the EU’s position on Tibet? (I, by the way, support the Dalai Llama’s position and welcome the dialogue that has been opened between China and the DL.)
Yes, we all need to pursue ideals, but the real challenge is in seeing just how, and at what cost, they can be realized in the real world. The real world consists of compromises, contradictions, nuances, complexities and sacrifices. (There are many in the world today who believe that Latvians made the wrong moral decision by fighting alongside the Nazis in the Latvian Legion during WWII. Talk about a complex situation that cannot be reduced to simple black and white positions!)
