Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2708)	1/24/2003 11:15:33 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Multilateralism On Trial January 23, 2003 ndol.org The leaders of France and Germany have spent much of this week expressing outrage and opposition at the possibility of U.S.-led military action against Iraq on terms dictated by Washington. We understand their concern about the Bush Administration's persistent habit of unilateralism, and its tone-deaf belligerency on every issue related to Iraq. But instead of simply wailing about the President's disdain for multilateral action, his European critics need to provide an effective multilateral strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein. Otherwise, they are doing more damage to the credibility of multilateral organizations and the rule of international law than all the unilateralist sins of the Bush Administration combined. Let's remember why we're in a confrontation with Iraq in the first place. Saddam Hussein's regime was allowed to survive its defeat in the Gulf War in exchange for a variety of restrictions on his freedom of action, mostly having to do with giving up the right to slaughter his own people, wage war against his neighbors, and -- most important of all -- brew up biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry. On this last point, the enforcement mechanism was to be full and untrammeled cooperation with whatever disclosure and inspections regime the United Nations chose to impose. For more than a decade, Iraq failed to provide this cooperation, despite repeated and ever-more-insistent U.N. resolutions. In part because the United Nations tolerated his defiance, Saddam ultimately felt free to stop answering questions about his weapons of mass destruction programs and kick inspectors out entirely. Thanks in no small part to a threat of unilateral U.S. action, the United Nations finally refocused on Iraq's defiance, passed a new resolution offering Iraq a "final chance" to prove compliance with past demands for disarmament, and sent in inspectors. But now, even as fresh evidence of Iraq's refusal to document its disarmament piles up, France and Germany seem more concerned about restraining Washington than reigning in Baghdad. So what, we would ask, will be left of the United Nations' authority if it fails to enforce its own resolutions one more time? What will be left of NATO as an expression of the common will of the North Atlantic allies if its resources are denied to a member country at war with a common enemy? And what will be left of the force of international law if the ultimate outlaw in Baghdad succeeds in facing down the world community one more time? If that happens, countries like the United States will have little choice but to act without multilateral sanction. We strongly believe the United States should do everything possible, not just on Iraq, but on a wide range of issues, to rebuild multilateral institutions that reflect our values and that help promote peace, security, prosperity and stability around the world. The Bush Administration's efforts to de-legitimize multilateralism is one of the strangest and most self-defeating aspects of the Bush presidency, a campaign that consistently discourages our friends and makes life easier for our enemies. But the legitimacy of multilateralism is also threatened by those who treat it as an end in itself. Multilateral organizations and international law itself serve no real purpose if they are not reliable instruments for the maintenance of international norms and the promotion of peace, stability and prosperity. The diplomacy and leadership skills of the Bush Administration are clearly on trial during the present confrontation with Iraq. But so, too, are the international laws and multilateral organizations that exist to deal with threats like those posed by the global outlaw Saddam Hussein. If France and Germany would spend more time making multilateralism work, they would have less reason to worry about unilateralism in the United States.