Bush the Multilateralist
The Wall Street Journal is running an editorial this morning arguing that President Bush has been inaccurately characterized as a go-it-alone president. In fact, they suggest, “with a couple of exceptions, he’s been the model of a modern multilateralist.” This is an absurdly hard point to make, and the WSJ makes a valid attempt. But, inevitably, they fall short.
The problem with their argument is transparent: It’s certainly not “model” multilateralism when the international community is deferred to when there is either intense, unrelenting pressure to do so (the E3′s involvement in Iran); when it is politically useful to sucker other countries into sharing some of your burden (Iraq, Afghanistan); or when the result is not a major concern, and where it is therefore just as easy to spread around the responsibility – and thus the blame when nothing is accomplished (think Israel-Palestine, Darfur).
Authentic, multilateralist-inclined governments seek to strengthen the cooperative world order and not just manipulate it when circumstances force them to do so. These governments are genuinely interested in working with other countries to solve problems, work on mutual solutions, and solidify international institutions and norms. Surely, the Bush administration doesn’t fit that definition.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Bush the Multilateralist”
There is no country in the world that could truly be called multilateral in the modern world. What many in America mean when they say “coalition/multilateral” is that they want to find another country and use that country's position as a defacto veto what ever the U.S. supports or plans. A good example is if France will not go along (or Germany or Russia) then the U.S. should not do whatever is being proposed.
Don't forget Kyoto as an example of Bush's go-it-alone presidency.
Just like we've never had an open, calm and rational discussion about race, there has never been an open discussion about what exactly the defense of 'national incterests' legitimately entails. What is permissible and/or advisable and what is counterproductive and what is morally reprehensible.?
I don't think this can be resolved with sweeping statements coveing all situations in all historical time periods. Intervention in one case (Iran's Shah) can backfire while intervention in another instance (Kosovo) can work well.
This takes careful calibrating, consideration of consequences and a hefty measure of luck.
Because of its bloody and ego destryoing history, Europe is now much more cautious than the US about involvement in ticklish and controversail international situations. Now that the US is getting its nose ru
FALSE CUT OFF IN THE ABOVE COMMENT, NOW CONTINUING
….Now that the US is getting its nose rubbed in the mud of international opinion, I suspect we will take a more humble appraoch.
There is such a thing as being overly cautious, however, as the EU demonstrates in Afghanistan. Getting it just right is never easy and requires a lot of learning on the roller coaster of contradictory experience over time.
Bush the multilateralist… Yeah, right. This by the same paper who thought Bush was right when he said that Iraq had WMDs and that Rice was right about those 'shrooms. (The paper people, along with Bush and Rice were smoking 'shrooms all along.)
It may be accurate to call Bush a johnny-come-lately multilateralist, as most of his foreign policy decisions in his second term fall into that mode. The problem is that he has had one of the steepist learning curves of any president in recent memory, succeeding in alienating many valuable allies with his “with us or against us” “dead or alive” approach of the first term. We will be suffering the consequences of his ill-concieved cowboy diplomacy initiatives for countless years as we remain mired down in Iraq and continue our involvement in a stalemate in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The multilateral efforts towards Iran and North Korea cannot make up for these
If McCain becomes our next president we may see that effort widened to include a war with Iran, although, McCain does appear to have a more realistic approach to dealing with other democracies than Bush/Cheney had. He does seem to recognize that we can't force their cooperation through intimidation and economic pressure..