 |
|
February
6, 2003 9:50 a.m.
Last
Dance
U.N.
lessons.
|
|
 et's
hope that Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations is the final stage
of an American foreign policy in which major U.S. national-security decisions
are first vetted with the U.N. before implementation. This is a remnant
of Bush 41's "New World Order."
I understand
that the Bush-41 crowd — James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Lawrence
Eagleburger — is personally invested in this approach. But let's not
forget what this strategy produced back in 1991. President George H. W.
Bush felt constrained from eliminating Saddam Hussein by the very U.N. resolution
that he sought and that his advisers crafted. While Baker, et al., point
to the Gulf War as a diplomatic success for having built a broad coalition
of countries against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it was a tactical failure
for having left Hussein in power. A broad coalition in support of U.S. objectives
is smart diplomacy. But weakening U.S. objectives to build a broad coalition
undermines U.S. national-security interests.
In any event, the
U.S. can build a broad coalition without the U.N.'s imprimatur, and it
has. In fact, despite the failure of the U.N. Security Council to thus
far enforce its own November 8, 2002, resolution against Iraq, the U.S.
can count over 40 countries among its allies when war breaks out.
The U.N. is a cumbersome
bureaucracy. Its processes can quickly become counterproductive. Many
of the member states don't share U.S. objectives and values. Therefore,
if, for example, Iraq poses an imminent threat to U.S. national-security
interests, which the administration contends as it prepares for war, the
U.N. should not have a voice in that decision. If it wants to express
its support, or provide support, that's fine. However, the U.S. should
not formally seek U.N. approval, as in the current situation. To do so
either requires the U.S. to surrender its national security interests
to U.N. oversight and accept the consequences, or abandon U.N. oversight
when the consequences are unacceptable.
Bush 41 decided to
live with the consequences, i.e. a watered-down U.N. resolution resulting
in Hussein's survival. Thankfully Bush 43 is preparing to reject the consequences,
and is deploying U.S. forces to eliminate Hussein even before a final
U.N. decision. In doing so, Bush 43 will delegitimize the U.N. and its
role in such decisions. This raises the question: Why the kabuki dance
with the U.N. in the first place?
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
