Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: That's really a mixture of things. I think the administration's approach was both multilateralist and unilateralist. It gave multilateralism a good run (6 painful and embarrassing months), but it always had a bottom line that was willing to be unilateralist. That probably both helped and hurt. Going to the UN got 1441 passed and moving forces into the region doubtless helped get Iraq to accept 1441 and get the inspectors in. But at the same time, there was never any chance that the US would simply walk away from the commitment to disarm Iraq in a short timeframe. If anyone thought that there was any chance at all of a repeat of 1998, they were seriously mistaken. But actually, I don't think that they were mistaken. It is just that Chirac made the calculation that there was more benefit this time from snubbing the US than going along with the plan. Countries do this kind of thing, you know. Nobody ever said that diplomacy means not playing hardball. The US did play hardball, and so did France. The result ended up being stalemate. The US went to war, but without the cover of a UN figleaf. France got to play champion of the anti-American crowd, but will lose a lot of influence in the UN in the future because no American administration will put itself back in the position of asking the UN for permission again for many, many years. The question is whether this is going to carry over to other areas of relations. Frankly, I doubt it. The economies of the developed world are too interdependent for a serious trade war. There may be symbolic slaps, but I really don't expect anything more. Also, even if the UN does wither away or become less ambitious, it doesn't mean there won't be other forums for cooperation. There already are other organizations. Everything from the G7 to the WTO (though I hesitate to say NATO because I think that is the walking dead as well). And anyway, most international economic contacts occur completely independnet of government. Most of our contacts are between businesspeople, not politicians. So life will go on. |
How do you know that no American Administrations would put itself back into the postion of asking the UN for permission?
If the original plan was to let the inspectors do there work then how long should we have let them stay? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? Iraq disobeyed the resolution of the first gulfwar, no one did anything about it. Bush did what needed to be done. I wouldn't call it unilateralism since we DO have a coalition of about 45 countries. that was more than we had in the first gulf war. This is the other thing. No one said anything in the US when we went into Haiti WITHOUT the UN's approval. We bombed some Asprin Factory in the Sudan without UN approval. Why the big stink now? Where was the outrage when our troops were sent in to Somalia? Oh yeah that's right it was a UN action. Where was the UN before our troops got killed?
You and others may see it differently than I but I think Bush took charge of a situation that needed to be taken care of and took care of it. He went to the UN unlike Clinton for his foray into Haiti. Where was the outrage then? Where was the outrage for Bosnia? Was it not Clinton who left the troops there? I belive it was in somalia that he left the troops after Bush said they were going to be returning home?
What benefit did Chiac see from snubbing the US? other than helping his friend Saddam?