Lets hear it for the Death of "Liberal Multilateralism!" (I Wish) "WSJ.com"
A Doctrine Dies
President Bush buries liberal multilateralism.
BY PETE DU PONT
Thursday, September 26, 2002 12:01 a.m.
Old doctrines die hard. Russians had to wait three-quarters of a century to see the doctrine of communism die. Americans waited half a century to see the Keynesian economic doctrine of broad state regulation of the commanding heights of the nation's economy replaced by F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman's market economics.
But this month we've witnessed the death of two interrelated U.S. foreign-policy doctrines: containment and United Nations multilateralism. Containment was born of the need to limit Soviet expansion. Multilateralism came from the belief that individual nation-states should never again be allowed--as Germany did twice in the last century--to shatter global security.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush has accelerated the demise of these doctrines. He has continually said this nation will not wait to be attacked again. In May he elaborated a more coherent doctrine, one of pre-emption, when he spoke to West Point's graduating class.
But the president signed the death warrant for containment and multilateralism this past Sept. 12, when he stood before the U.N. and admonished the international, multilateral body for not enforcing its 16 resolutions against Iraq. Any doubt about the death of these doctrines should have been dispelled last week, when Democratic congressional leaders endorsed the spirit of a proposed resolution authorizing the president to use pre-emptive force against Iraq to protect the security of this nation--although the Democrats are reserving the right to tinker with the wording of that resolution.
Multilateralism--the idea that America will act in its own interest only when sanctioned by the international community--had been the core of American liberal foreign policy for five decades. And even internationally sanctioned operations aren't always justifiable, according to liberal doctrine. Thus in 1991, 47 Democratic senators (out of 56) voted against authorizing American military force to expel Saddam from Kuwait. Neither an aggressive terrorist nation controlling vast quantities of the world's oil supply nor the invasion of one nation by another was enough to change their thinking.
The liberal view has been that the U.S. can use its military forces in multilaterally approved operations of little consequence to American security--Haiti or Bosnia--but not where our security interests are strong, as they were in the Gulf War. The carnage of Sept. 11 temporarily suspended that view, but by midsummer of 2002 it was back in full flower in the public debate on Iraq.
Logically, multilaterlalism is a weak reed, for any nation would abandon it in a moment if the threat to its security or its people were immediate enough and near enough; no nation would sacrifice itself or its future on the alter of such a doctrine. But over the years following the Vietnam War it became liberal religion in America. The Democratic left, reflexively antimilitary, suspicious of any international action taken by America in its own interest, and dubious about any sort of moral judgment, signed on to multilateralism with enthusiasm. Both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter reaffirmed their faith in it earlier this week in criticizing President Bush's proposed actions regarding Iraq--Mr. Gore, who as a senator was one of the few Democrats to back the Gulf War, doing so with all the zeal of a convert.
Even before Sept. 11, it was clear George W. Bush didn't place much stock in the doctrine of liberal multilateralism. The new administration put America's interests above international comity in withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, refusing to sign on to the Kyoto "global warming" treaty, and balking at the International Criminal Court.
Liberals were astonished to find themselves alone in arguing against missile defenses; the American people liked the idea of that we could defend ourselves against a rogue missile attack. Kyoto was always a red herring, given that the Senate unanimously approved a 1997 resolution saying it would never ratify a treaty that would harm the U.S. economy. Liberals couldn't even get a sympathetic whimper over the administration decision not to join the International Criminal Court, which lacks the individual protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The morning of Sept. 11, 2001, of course, changed everything. Oh, a few nutty professors condemned the draping of American flags from dormitory windows as culturally offensive. And at Princeton, a handful of students demanded mediation, not war, with the Taliban. We should come to better understand and appreciate their culture, they said. But no liberal elected official was foolish enough to preach cultural equivalence or multilateralism; with the lone exception of California's Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrats were in full support of the war against terrorism.
Then came President Bush's "axis of evil" speech along with his focus on Saddam Hussein. For a year now the president has built a doctrine of prevention. The United States can no longer rely on "a reactive posture as we have in the past," but instead as "a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against . . . emerging threats before they are fully formed," Mr. Bush said. That doctrine made sense to most people. Going after terrorists before they attack is clearly popular, especially since America has the military resources to eliminate their threats.
President Bush ratcheted up his pre-emptive policy when he went to the U.N., by emphasizing that if the international body chooses not to act against Iraq, the U.S. will step up to its responsibilities. Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell made the case to Congress. After a White House meetings with Democratic leaders, even politicians on the left emerged in support of a resolution authorizing force against Iraq.
"The president's plan is working," said Joe Biden (D,, Del.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "This should be a cooperative thing. We are not at odds with the president." The Washington Post agreed, editorializing that "we believe the president's decision to act is the right one." And so Congress is working on a resolution to give the president authority to "use all appropriate means, including force," against Iraq to protect America's and the world's security.
So the doctrine of multilateralism vanished with the emergence of al Qaeda, Iraq's increasing threat and the leadership of a president who is young enough not to see the world in the obsolete terms of superpower confrontation.
President Bush has changed public thinking, moved the Democratic congressional leadership and replaced an outdated national security policy with a new and more relevant one. The only thing he has not moved is the United Nations, but its multilateral posture has been overtaken by events, so in the end even the indomitable bureaucracy of the U.N. will grudgingly support the president's efforts, if only to avoid being perceived as irrelevant.
The death of a doctrine and its replacement with a new one is a rare thing to behold. The past month has seen a textbook example of the exercise of presidential leadership in changing a governing doctrine of U.S. policy. We're seeing the strongest leadership America has had since Ronald Reagan faced down the Soviet Union two decades ago while changing the economic doctrines that were threatening the stability and security of this great nation.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is policy chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears Wednesdays. |
