A New World Order

The shape of international relations after the war in Iraq is still unclear. Will there be a complete break with the past?

"THEY just need to co-operate". When he used that menacing phrase, President George Bush was referring to Syria, and the allegations that it had provided help to Saddam Hussein's regime during the war in Iraq. But Mr Bush's confrontational attitude towards states he sees as hostile to America and its interests appears—to some, at least—to signal a seismic shift in American foreign policy. Ever since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, Mr Bush has tended to argue that those who are not with America are against it. It is an attitude which partly reflects his strong Christian beliefs. But to the extent that the president intends what he says to be taken literally, it is an illustration of how much the world has changed.

How it has changed, and how international relations will evolve in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, is far more difficult to judge. As always with Mr Bush, it is as important to watch what he does as it is to listen to what he says. In the end, America did go ahead and invade Iraq, in the face of considerable international opposition. But the administration in Washington also displayed far more patience in its attempts to secure broad support for its stand at the United Nations than many had expected. The language recently used to warn Syria to behave has led some observers to infer that the regime in Damascus might also face an attempt to overthrow it. But America has said it has no such plans. In practice, there is little sign that even the Bush administration's most hawkish members are pushing for further military intervention in the Middle East. What happened in Iraq should, for now, be enough to make rogue states very nervous. It may even already have had an effect on the North Korean regime, which has toned down its fiery rhetoric and agreed to discuss its nuclear programme with America and China.

The White House posts statements by President Bush and posts the National Security Strategy, which set out Mr Bush's policy on pre-emptive action. The US State Department posts information on America's foreign relations. The EU outlines its external relations and posts information on the common foreign and security policy. The positions of Britain and France epitomise the foreign-policy differences within Europe. The Council on Foreign Relations posts research and commentary on global foreign policy. The Centre for European Reform analyses the diplomatic divide within Europe and between Europe and America.

This, of course, is what has become known as the doctrine of pre-emption. America now seems to be ready to strike at any potential threat to its interests, before that threat is realised. As the world's only superpower, it is easy to see why such an approach makes sense in Washington. America has now clearly demonstrated its convincing military superiority. If anyone doubted that America could wage war successfully in more than one place at a time, and do so with a relatively light force, the events of the past few weeks will have forced a rethink.

But being a superpower does not bring complete immunity from attack, as the destruction of the World Trade Centre showed. Nor does it mean that America can act without any regard to the interests and wishes of others. America needs good relations with the rest of the world, and especially with its key strategic allies. The political philosophy which underpins its constitution and its economic success ultimately depends on vigorous interchange with other countries and full participation in the world economy. The fact that some parts of American business, not to mention Congress, are instinctively protectionist does not mean that America would be a more successful economy without free trade. Any one sector in any one country can usually benefit from subsidies and restrictions on foreign competition: that does not mean that the economy as a whole would register similar gains.

For those non-superpowers who are nevertheless accustomed to wielding considerable influence in international affairs—France being the obvious example—the shift in the balance of power that has taken place in the past couple of decades is bound to be frustrating. The days of the cold war made it much easier for America's strategic allies to punch above their weight. In diplomatic terms, Europe benefited enormously from its proximity to the Soviet empire. For America, the continent was an important buffer, worth the great expense. For Europe, this meant influence and, even more important, someone to pick up most of the tab for defence.

Even in those days there were tensions. In principle, America liked the idea of the European Union. For Washington, it should have simplified doing business with a disparate group of countries. In practice, it often made it more complicated—who spoke for Europe was never wholly clear—and America resented European attempts to take an independent line just as much as Europe resented being told what to do. Since 1991, though, with the cold war over, America has perhaps started to mind less what Europe thinks.

This more disdainful mindset perhaps reached its apogee in the painful arguments that took place at the United Nations before the invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration made it clear that while it was prepared to try for agreement on a new UN resolution, it was not prepared to be deflected from its chosen course by France, Germany or Russia. The Bush administration is probably more suspicious of Europe than its predecessors—but that is probably simply a question of degree. Most American policymakers regard the European Union as hidebound, protectionist and, at worst, inclined to appeasement. That is why the support of Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, was so important in Washington.

American suspicions about Europe will not fade now that the campaign in Iraq is drawing to a close. Nor will European resentment at the all-powerful upstart from the New World be any more subdued, at least in private. Yet efforts are already under way on both sides to ease the tensions. America has gone a long way towards accepting a UN role in post-war Iraq, although the terms of this role remain usefully vague. European opponents of the war have also been at pains in recent days to strike an emollient note.

Transatlantic relations remain at the heart of American and European foreign policy. The two continents are too closely bound together for that to change in the short term. Talk of the “Pacific century”, implying a westward shift of America's focus, turned out to be premature, partly because of the economic mess Japan got into, and partly because relations with China remain prickly. So how America and Europe patch up their differences will largely determine the future shape of international relations.

America wants Europe to face up to its responsibilities: to raise defence spending, to disavow protectionism in favour of free trade, to reform its creaking economic structures, and to recognise that appeasement rarely buys more than time. Europe, in turn, would like to see America play a more co-operative role in world affairs, to be more willing to participate in global efforts to control global warming, to support the International Criminal Court, and so on. The balance of power makes it realistic to assume America will continue to get more of what it wants. Ultimately, Europe may have to take it or leave it.

Why is President Bush so set on leaving the border open and kowtowing to the Muslims? Why?

I don't get the impression that he is. I hear that squawk a lot around here, but to me it sounds like the same noise that liberals made all during the war — "are we there yet?"

Getting tougher on immigration is not something where you can just bark an order to somebody and — presto — it happens. This is an enormous undertaking involving tens of thousands of people, and some serious changes in the law. So far Bush has created an entire new Cabinet-level department to organize this stuff, gotten the hopelessly incompetent INS out of the Justice Department, where it had been used for decades as a dumping ground for unwanted Civil Service hires; moved the Border Patrol out from under the guys whose charter was really the promotion of trade and tourism; and started to make some links between the intelligence agencies, the people at the border including the Coast Guard, and state-and-local law enforcement.

That may sound like bureaucratic reshuffling, but it's exactly the same thing the Pentagon has been doing that makes our armed forces so lethal — one guy on the ground and one guy in the air can take out an entire tank company in five minutes flat... but only if they can communicate and have the charter to work together.

Did you know that Mohammad Atta had been stopped numerous times for minor traffic violations, and every single time the cops ran him through the NCIS data base, but nothing ever came back? The INS was not allowed to put the fact that his visa had expired, and that he was a "deport if found" candidate, into the FBI's Crime Information System. Why? Some quirk in the law that no one had ever thought was important.

Now that stuff is getting sorted out. The Border Patrol is being beefed up. The Customs agents are getting better equipment. All this stuff takes time, training, and money. People talk like there's some switch that Bush can throw to "close the borders now!" and the problem is that he won't do it. That's not Real World. In the real world, the things are happening that need to happen to make it a hell of a lot tougher to sneak in, or to overstay one's welcome. It just isn't happening instantly, or without mistakes... because it can't.

Getting tougher on immigration is not something where you can just bark an order to somebody and — presto — it happens.

All it involves is enforcing the laws already on the books - nothing new needs to be done - no reshuffling is necessary. We have what is needed already. But you see, nothing is being done - nothing.

YOu do understand that President Bush has been in office for 2 1/2 years -and yes, I do know he has been busy - but personally, I think the border is more important than Iraq or equally as important. So far all he has done is place all our law enforcement people under one command which is frightening to me. I don't know what all is being done - but so far they have decided they will place 35,000 people on the bridges and gates - now that is going to do next to nothing to the illegal problem.

The government has used scarce resources to stalk a citizen that was trying to do something to help the problem. They arrested him for carrying a gun in a national 'forest' - the same thing drug dealers and illegals do every day - yet they spend the country resources tracking down an American who has been openly critical of government - sound a little vengeful? It does to me.

Also, so far all I have seen/heard President Bush do about the problem is tell us how they are all just hardworking people looking for a better life and he wants amnesty for them. Also he is allowing President Fox to issue a matricula card, give dual citizenship, etc. That could be stopped in heartbeat and he hasn't --why? No we are getting amnesty piecemeal because he is not willing to face the American people and push it through. It would have been a done deal if not for 9/11.

I want it to be so - but so far, I have seen nothing. More agents at the gates will do little. Using the few resources we have to punish citizens who disagree with his policies will do worse than nothing. Setting back and allowing his friend Fox to chew up our sovereignty is too scary. This is something that can't wait. He knows if he waits long enough, he can do it without the people getting too upset. I predict amnesty and a lot of other ugly things will happen during his second term.

Now you can like Pres. Bush for a lot of things, you can love him, you can just think he is wonderful - but don't ever try to tell us he is doing anything about immigration - anything to stop it and anything that is good for the American people or the country. Just won't stand up. Just won't.

All it involves is enforcing the laws already on the books - nothing new needs to be done

Oh, get off it. The existing Border Patrol agents do not go out there every day saying, "Well, today I think I won't enforce the laws that are on the books." They are working stiffs just like you and me who get up every day and head out there to fight crime. When I lived in San Diego I used to see them every day, pulling over cars, raiding places where illegals were likely to be employed, emptying out vans full of Mexicans at the side of the highway. But there are only so many of them, and they can't deal with the flood coming over the border.

You can stand in the Oval Office and scream as loud as you want, "You guys make it stop!" but they cannot do it. There need to be more of them; they need more trucks; they need more spotter planes and drones. They need a lot of things, all of which cost money.

The way you get money, under the Constitution, is to have Congress appropriate it. So now you have to stand in the Oval Office and scream at Congress, "Give us money!" But that doesn't work either. From a White House proposal to signed legislation is a months-long deal, especially where money is involved. And if you're honest, you will admit that "immigration reform" is just not that hot an issue. It may be for you, but that's not what Joe Congressman sees when he looks at the constituent mail. So he thinks, "Yeah, we'll do it, but there's no need for sirens and blue lights on this one." I'm sorry, but that's what it looks like on Capitol Hill.

You really are left sitting in the back of the car, screaming "Are we there yet?" while the adults try to make stuff happen in the real world. On the one hand, you tell us, "I don't know what all is being done." But then you also say, "But you see, nothing is being done - nothing." What can we conclude from this except that you are spewing an emotional rant? OK, we can put you in the anti-immigration pile, but should we put any credence in what you're saying? How can we?

That's a little nasty, isn't it. There are many more laws on the books dealing with illegal aliens than just the ones dealing with entry. You have the laws for hiring them, being implicit in their entry, we have tax laws, we have labor laws.

Now I am not in any way putting down the Border Patrol - so don't even go there. That is a really good tactic - to try to deflect the blame from the ones repsonsible to the ones trying valiantly to enforce the law with one hand tied behind their backs. That's shameful.

You will have to admit, a mindset, coupled with some speeches by the President would go a long way in dealing with this. He knows what power his speeches and his attitude have. Why do you think he made the 'just hardworking people, blah, blah, blah' speech - when he knows the damage that is being done? Why do you think he has allowed President Fox to make demands of this country and is allowing Fox to circumvent the laws of this country, and he either gives in to the demands or is part of the planning initially? The only time he has appeared to stand up to Fox is over the execution of an illegal alien. He could not have done that without really looking bad. He would have had to turn upside down the laws of Texas on this subject and after all, he is the governor during the election that, rightly so, pointed out the power to change this was with the Parole Boards. So just how too-faced would it have looked if he had interferred. Couldn't do it. Some thought it was a real Mexican stand-off - nothing of the kind. Do you think Fox really cared about that criminal?

You know as I read a lot of posts and listen to not a lot of talk radio, I begin to see certain phrases surface and they become what the now supporters of the administration use to attempt to make dissenters look silly or to try to neutralize them. If I had a nickel for everytime I heard someone use the "Are we there yet" phrase - I could buy a nice dinner.

Now I did see scarce resources used to find some wrongdoing on the part of the citizen patrol leader in the national forest. How many man hours do you think it took to stalk that man before they found him doing something they could use? How many illegals, terrorists, and drug dealers came by while they were focusing on him.

Has President Bush gone to congress to lobby for money for the border? Outside of money to reshuffle and lump all our law enforcement under one command (a very frightening prospect)? He lobbied hard to get funds for a war with Iraq - don't you think if he used his power - went to the American people with the truth - he would get the money? Of course he would.

Once again, I heard excuse after excuse for why nothing is done. From he's only been in a few months, he was busy with 9/11, he needs a majority, he has no money, the dastardly democrats are just being mean spirited. Now we have a President that has a dream situation for getting something done right in this country. The party controls congress, he has all his law enforcement under one man-his appointee, he has a war, he has very high approval ratings, he has the will of the people to do something. My goodness, what more could he possibly need? Now, of course, I don't buy the excuses - but those excusers are actually saying, unintentionally, that he is completely ineffectual. I don't buy that - he went to war, didn't he. The border is no less a war.

Now insult me, make excuses - the way the arguments in his favor go - he is one of two things - in complete agreement with illegal immigration or a very ineffectual President. Personally, I won't insult him - I think he is very effectual - so those supporters need to watch exactly how they frame their excuses.

Has President Bush gone to congress to lobby for money for the border?

In other words, you don't know.

I heard excuse after excuse for why nothing is done.

You keep saying that nothing is done. But there is no evidence that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, or have made any effort to find out.

If I had a nickel for everytime I heard someone use the "Are we there yet" phrase - I could buy a nice dinner.

Why don't you go visit the Department of Homeland Security web site, like I just did, and find out what's being done. Don't just sit there and tell us it's "nothing," because it isn't. Don't tell us that Bush could get funding "if he wanted to," because he already has. Your whole position here is contradicted by easily-obtainable facts. You are wasting oxygen, and our time. Please stop.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The man has just pushed through a new Cabinet-level Department, conducted the largest re-organization in the history of the federal government, lobbied for and acquired billions in new funding — all of it directed at protecting the country from these foreign fanatics — while you sit there and say that nothing is being done. The new Department started operation less than three months ago, and you're complaining that "we aren't there yet." Why don't you go visit the Department of Homeland Security web site, like I just did, and find out what's being done. Don't just sit there and tell us it's "nothing," because it isn't. Don't tell us that Bush could get funding "if he wanted to," because he already has. Your whole position here is contradicted by easily-obtainable facts. You are wasting oxygen, and our time. Please stop.

Hey, wait a minute here - you are the one who said he didn't have the money, congress wouldn't give it to him, he could do nothing. You can't have it both ways - either he has the money or he doesn't. Which is it?

I stand by my original statement - nothing substantive has been done. Has he notified employers the government will be investigating and punishing them? Has there been any deportation of any consequences? Has he stopped the insanity and destructive practice of American taxpayers with children of their own, from having to support these illegals? Why did the federal government go after the citizen patrol leader? Now hiring people is not doing anything. Using them effectively is. The article I read said they were going to be on the gates and bridges - sorry, that makes no sense.

Everything that I want done could have been started 2 1/2 years ago. You can still make all kinds of excuses, but as I said, what you are saying is he can't handle the job. I don't believe that - but sadly the excuses seem to point to that.

Now we can revisit this when I see a post on here or see him make a speech that everyone who is employing illegals needs to let them go. They will have 30 days to do this and after that will be fined so much a day per illegal. If the fines are not paid in a timely manner, the businesses will be padlocked. All those who are illegals will be given the 30 days to get their affairs in order, at which time, they will be deported, anchor babies and all. If there is any appeal to be made, let them make it from Mexico. That would solve a big chunk of the problem. Have you heard anything like that? Neither have I and you won't. Now, as I said, this could have been done 2 1/2 years ago. Before the matricula card insanity - before the insanity to give SS to Mexicans - before dual citizen. Before bankrupt states, cities, hospitals and overtaxed citizens. Do you see every day brings something new that is not good.

You know if the employers had been 'discriminating against someone or any group, or if they had not withheld and paid in taxes on American citizens, the federal government would be using these tactics, and more.

No reshuffling would have been needed to do that. The laws are there, use them. Just making it plain they would be enforced would be a good start. Instead, we are going to reshuffle everything, reorganize everything and if he is really lucky, 'everything won't be in place yet' until after the election. In the meantime, we probably will get amnesty piecemeal.

All we have seen is President Bush pushing for amnesty and he would have had it, if not for 9/11.

As for not knowing what is going on - really. If anything substantive had been done. If just one of the things I proposed would have been done - the pro immigration crowd, the ACLU, LULAC and the entire media would be on it big time.

Nope, I am in no way saying "Are we there yet?" You see, I realize we haven't even started the trip. Once again, I don't intend to be nasty. Nastiness implies a certain lack of facts and/or individual thinking. I really like to debate facts or ideas -

we can revisit this when I see a post on here or see him make a speech that everyone who is employing illegals needs to let them go. They will have 30 days to do this and after that will be fined so much a day per illegal.

Are you serious? Do you really not know that employing illegal aliens is against the law? And has been for years? There is a whole system of fines and even imprisonment that has been in place since 1986. Is this part of the "nothing" that you think has been done? Please, before you spout off any more about this, get yourself a copy of the Employer's Handbook, publication M-274 of the Department of Justice. Any human resources person of your acquaintance will have one. In the meantime, don't tell people that there needs to be a law against hiring illegal aliens. It just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

I stand by my original statement - nothing substantive has been done.

That is called "proof by reassertion." It is proof of nothing except that you still haven't produced any facts. Here's a fact: so-called "Middle Eastern males" were required by January to appear at local INS offices to have their photographs and fingerprints taken. 400 of them had the additional surprise of being arrested and jailed for visa violations. Needless to say, the ACLU et. al. went nuts over this and are fighting it in court. But when you say they're doing "nothing," you're wrong.

So far, just in this note, I have documented two of your wrongs. Two wrongs do not make you right.

I'm a "one-issue" voter, that one issue being immigration. I want it stopped yesterday. As a result, I did not vote for GWB in 2000 because I felt he would do nothing about the problem. I am slowly coming around to the conclusion that President Bush is actually addressing this problem, and is actually doing something about it. As you say, this is a difficult and tedious process, but I do believe progress is being made.

At this point I am willing to apply an old maxim to our President, "Watch what he does, not what he says". As of now he still pays lip service to the idea of having what are, for all intents and purposes, open borders with Mexico. However, his actions would seem to indicate that he is aware of this problem and that is he is doing his best to address it.

I am watching all of this very closely. I did not vote for him in 2000, but if he keeps on the course he has laid out concerning immigration I will end up voting for him in 2004. "Watch what they do, not what they say". Based upon what he is doing, he is on track to get my vote.

Are you serious? Do you really not know that employing illegal aliens is against the law? And has been for years? There is a whole system of fines and even imprisonment that has been in place since 1986. Is this part of the "nothing" that you think has been done? Please, before you spout off any more about this, get yourself a copy of the Employer's Handbook, publication M-274 of the Department of Justice. Any human resources person of your acquaintance will have one. In the meantime, don't tell people that there needs to be a law against hiring illegal aliens. It just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

Where did that come from? I never said we had no such law. I knew we had the law - that has been my point all along. We have the necessary laws to do something - all we need is the backbone to enforce them. But thank you for citing the chapter and verse of what I had been stating all along. Now why is he not enforcing this?

If you don't want to read my posts, that is fine. I have no problem with that. But to keep making my point for me while trying to discredit my statements seems strange. I really can't have a debate with someone who is willing to document my arguments for me.

Well, I will give that a baby step and say something has been done. How many have been deported? Where are those 400 now? Did they do their usual and release them to return for voluntary deportation? If they have, in fact, deported them, I will give you a big - you are right. This would still only be a start with the millions of illegals here now - but it would certainly be a start.

But you see the INS does round up a lot of illegals and charge them and order them deported and then release them - remember the sniper case?

I do agree the ME males are something - but in the scheme of things - not much - but something.

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.