Multilateralism and the Bush Doctrine

Time and again, the United Nations, rather than disavowing, condemning, or defeating genocide, has embraced those very countries that happen to be its worst perpetrators.

One of McCain’s best ideas this election season has been the creation of a League of Democracies.

I am not opposed to Wilsonian Multilateralism (or Clintonian for that matter). However, I do disagree with any nation’s foolish reliance on a corrupt organization that protects genocide while denouncing fledgling democracies. The hypocrisy is staggering.

I’m also in favor of regime change when possible and necessary, and with humanitarian intervention when the stakes are high enough. I do believe government’s such as Sudan under Omar Bashir should be toppled for the greater good. Does this mean we need to invest years and billions of dollars in future nation building as we are now in Iraq? It’s hard to say. Certainly international, bi-partisan cooperation could help hasten efforts in places such as Darfur where the question of saving human life is far more urgent than any question of re-building. This does not, however, mean that we should enter countries without international support or proper planning. The first three years in Iraq should be enough of a precautionary tale. The UN, however, is not an international body willing to act in any cohesive or meaningful way.

Could we blend some version of practical multilateralism with the Bush Doctrine? It seems less and less likely that either way is plausible without some help from the other.

An American Century?

America is in the unique position of leadership under such a multilateral foreign policy. McCain’s League of Democracies may be an ideal vehicle for this hybrid of American power and international cooperation. It is my hope that even if McCain loses–and I believe he will lose at this point–that Barack Obama and McCain put their differences aside to work toward achieving this foreign policy. Bi-partisanship will be necessary in the coming years.

The Bush administration entered the White House intent upon a far less interventionist policy than the Clinton administration–indeed, Bush came across far less hawkish than Gore in the 2000 election, disavowing regime change and nation building. However, the events of 9/11, the fear of WMD’s in Iraq, and the overall growing international tension forced the Bush administration into a foreign policy that they did not initially plan. Indeed, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives used this to their advantage, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others were more of the Realist variety, reluctant to fully embrace the hawkish policies that the neocons advocated.

This combination of neoconservative unilateralism and more classically conservative distrust of international powers and institutions led to a United States foreign policy that was anything but multilateralist, and oftentimes unsure of the direction it wanted to move. This goes deeper than the obvious disagreements between a Powell State Department and the more hawkish DOD. Indeed, even during the Rice years, State has been more moderate in its approach to foreign affairs.

The “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq was, and is, a farce save for Britain. This is not to diminish the bravery of the token troops sent from Poland, Italy, Georgia and the other Coalition nations, but in all seriousness, should America withdraw, these troops would be utterly useless. Even the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been rather more a unilateralist approach than it ought to be, with only the Danish and the British contributing much of anything at all to the effort.

Globalization and Multilateralism

It is my hope that whoever becomes President will continue to push a strong foreign policy agenda, especially against the rogue nations Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea (not to mention Russia, China…the list goes on). I also hope that they eschew the narrow unilateralism of the Bush years in favor of a more practical multilateralist approach.

This will take very rigorous diplomacy on America’s part, especially since America has reached new lows of unpopularity and mistrust around the world. Ironically, this has occurred simultaneously with the election of some of the most pro-US European leaders to take office in years. It is a promising, ironic, and dangerous world we entrust to the next American President.

Our allies can live up to that title more in the coming years, as can America, and we can do more to convince other democracies that this war against radicalism, proliferation of nuclear arms, and terror is one that we all must face together. It is a struggle that we cannot face alone, and that our allies cannot wish away. America should lead, but it should not leave behind the rest of the free world. Globalization has changed the game. In a world in which economies are inextricably bound to one another, the question can never only be one of national security–it is international security that must be achieved.

If the United Nations cannot bring this about, effectively abandoning its mission, and choses instead to cater to the tyrants and demagogues rather than uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, then America must find a new way to shore up its international support. We cannot go it alone for another eight years, nor can we fall victim to the easy road of moral relativity, tolerating the dangerously intolerant.

The time has come to throw out both options: futile international efforts and cowboy politics, and to seek out new ways to create a safer, more peaceful world, whoever our next President may be.

~cross-posted at <a href=”http://neoconstant.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/16/2008268-multilateralism-and-the-bush-doctrine”>Newsvine.</a>