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.