Posted on 05/05/2008 3:08:42 PM PDT by moderatewolverine
Last week I was in London attending a Global Leadership Forum, sponsored by the Royal United Services Institute, the Princeton Project on National Security, Newsweek International, and Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP. The attendees–from both the United States and Europe–included academics, scholars, journalists, diplomatic advisers and others who inhabit the foreign policy world. The event was well-organized, the conversations wide-ranging, and there was a genuine effort to hear from a diversity of voices (hence my invitation). But there is no question that the dominant outlook of most of those in attendance was left-leaning, which itself made the trip illuminating.
I came away from the gathering (portions of which I missed) with several broad impressions. One was that multilateralism has become virtually an end in itself. What matters to many Europeans and liberal-leaning Americans is the process rather than the results. What almost never gets discussed is what happens when one’s desire for multilateralism collides with achieving a worthy end (for example, trying to stop genocide in Darfur or prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb). The child-like faith in multilateralism as the solution to all that ails the world would be touchingly innocent if it weren’t so terribly dangerous.
There were the predictable assertions made about how the United States, under George W. Bush, was “unilateralist” and that, in the words of one former Clinton Administration official, “multilateralism was a dirty word” in the Bush Administration. This charge is simplistic and demonstrably untrue–and one could cite as evidence everything from the lead up to the Iraq war (in which the United States went to the UN not once but twice, and gained unanimous approval of Resolution 1441); the war itself (which included support from the governments of Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Norway, El Salvador and many other nations); the E3; the Quartet; the Six Party Talks; the Proliferation Security Initiative; a slew of free trade agreements; and more. In fact the Bush Administration was criticized by Democrats for being too multilateralist in their dealings with North Korea; it was said by John Kerry, among other liberals, that we should engage in bilateral talks with North Korea rather than rely on the Six Party Talks.
Another impression I had was that many (if not most) Europeans and American foreign policy experts are caught in a time warp, acting as if we are still in 2006. They simply want to wash their hands of Iraq. They hate the war, are seemingly impervious to the security and political progress we have seen in Iraq since last summer, and they want the next Administration to downplay Iraq as an issue, which they believe has “obsessed” the Bush presidency. What they don’t seem to understand is that ending U.S. involvement in the war won’t end the war. In fact, if Obama or Clinton follow up on their stated commitments, it is likely to trigger mass death and possibly genocide, revitalize al Qaeda, strengthen Iran, and further destabilize the region. The irony would be that the plans laid out by Democrats, if followed, would increase, not decrease, Iraq’s dominance of American foreign policy. An Iraq that is cracking up and caught in a death spiral is not something that even a President Obama or Clinton could ignore.
The third impression I came away with is the widespread view in Europe, as well as among some Americans, that the U.S. has suffered a huge, almost incalculable, loss of “moral authority” (its worth recalling that we heard much the same thing during the Reagan years). The evidence cited is always the same: Guantanamo Bay, rendition and secret prisons, and waterboarding. They are invoked like an incantation. The effect of this is that you would think that the United States is among the leading violators of human rights in the world.
During one of the panel sessions I said it was fine to place on one side of the moral ledger waterboarding three leading al Qaeda figures, which I consider to be a morally complicated issue–but that it’s also worth putting on the other side of the moral ledger the fact that we liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most odious and repressive regimes in modern history. Liberation was not the only impulse that drove the two wars, but it was one of them, and a noble one at that. I borrowed a line from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic who, while a harsh critic of the execution of the Bush Administration, has written “I find it impossible to denounce a war that led to the removal of a genocidal dictator.” That is especially true now that we have the right strategy in place, that we’re seeing progress on almost every front, and that we have a decent shot at a decent outcome in Iraq. The situation is still hugely challenging and success, if we achieve it, will be long in coming. But the collapse of will that I witnessed among some leading foreign policy voices on both sides of the Atlantic, while not surprising, was still discouraging. It is no wonder that world leaders who do not share that exhaustion are the objects of condemnation.
Too bad they couldn't get any established leaders to attend a Global Leadership Forum.
Thank you for the assessment.
It is appalling that in less than two generations, what our parents and grandparents fought for in WWII will be destroyed by liberalism and moral decay. We will face the same demons that they faced in different form, but who will fight for us?
FTA: “The childlike faith in multilaterism....”
Liberals in general are childlike in their outlook. To liberals, feelings are everything. They approach challenges by falling back on feelings; they analyze nothing; but they feel everything. To a liberal, the most important question asked is not “What do you think?”, it’s “How do you feel?”
“...but who will fight for us?”
We will fight for ourselves, like we’ve always done.
Why is waterboarding this scum “morally complicated”?
I really don’t get it.
NOTHING we do to them is morally complicated. Losing on purpose - THAT would be morally complicated.
Kill Qaeda Kill Quaeda Kill More Qaeda.
No one. We will fight ourselves because the enemy will continue bringing it to us ever more painfully until all American’s get off there collective ass and Washington politicians have no choice but to fight or die. Hence was the case in 1929, the Great Depression and WWII. Right up until Hitler invaded Poland liberals believed peace and ‘incentives’ could prevent evil minds from killing millions. If we just understood them!!!
Well, economically, it sure looks like 1929. Those people in that day in America had become selfish, it happens when you attain all the basics of life and start crying out ‘what’s left?!?!’ and then start taking it wrongly. Similar events are unfolding and the last two blocs of nations are now east and west. By the time this last war ends we will also be called the Greatest Generation. Don’t discount America - We will come back strong and win the day, but damn shame such human nature creeps back into our nation and we don’t seem to learn. I guess they should teach more history in school again instead of the social implications of not being ‘sensitive’.
Well it’s nice to see a little fire!
All three of us, that’s a majority. I got two fighters on that one. I hope it doesn’t take another Hitler to see what’s going on. Of course we will, but the attitude is so apathetic now...it is less firey now even on FR than it was four years ago. Yes, I know we aren’t happy with candidate.
I saw the two priests and two laywomen on EWTN TV tonight, and they were laying down to catholics about voting for prolife candidates, and that sometimes war was necessary. I almost fell off the bed..this is first time they have publicly came out and challenged the catholic vote to be conservative in straight talk. They said that 25% of US was catholic and if they voted with Bible then we wouldn’t be in mess we are in. It was a great talk, so I am thrilled to hear them actually speak out so boldly on voting and how to vote. I’m not catholic but I was impressed.
I have begun getting over my talking and venting stage and into some concrete action :) I am sick of every person on earth trashing America when we are the most benevolent nation on earth!
I agree with you, and I hear it too. They take, take, take, and then badmouth a nation that has allowed them to do things no other country on earth would tolerate.
Exactly. Remember, after night falls so does a new dawn!
Yes, and that light bulb needs to go on in others heads.
“The childlike faith in multilaterism....”
Remember, Europeans have always practiced multilateralism. For centuries, their geography has required them to form and maintain shifting webs of alliances and mutual defence pacts. Think World Wars I & II for clear examples, but if one looks deeper into European history, one finds the same thing going way, way back.
The US, on the other hand, has, from inception, pursued a general policy of hegemony and more self-reliance in matters of foreign affairs. This is not always 100% the case, but true in general terms.
There is a difference between multilateralism and trying to get popular support for an unilateral decision, which the Bush administration did before the Iraq war. The other examples are correct, actually we can count the Iran dialogues (haa haa!) as another example of the Bush administration supporting multilateralism, if only because they were too busy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.