Posted on 09/17/2002 12:17:44 AM PDT by Coeur de Lion
"I am totally against unilateralism in the modern world," says French president Jacques Chirac, expressing the particular European distaste for any strong U.S. action vis à vis Iraq, but also making a much larger claim regarding the morality of sovereign power itself.
As I read Chirac's comment, the categorical nature of it made me suddenly realize how the opposition to unilateralism, about which we hear so much today, is of a piece with all the other familiar liberal positions, ranging from global gun control to campaign finance reform to anti-discrimination laws, that tend in the direction of the elimination of political and personal freedom.
What is unilateralism? It is a nation-state taking action, political or military, on the international stage, whether to defend its interests or to restore order in an area of the world that comes within its purview or responsibility. For example, when the United States intervened from time to time in Haiti over the course of the 20th century to restore a minimum of order in that desperate place, that was unilateralism. When the United States confronted the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that was unilateralism. When the U.S. sent massive amount of materiél to Israel at a crucial moment in the 1973 War, that was unilateralism. When the U.S. bombed Libya following a terrorist attack on U.S. service personnel in West Germany in the 1980s, that was unilateralism. When Israel rescued its hostages in Entebbe, that was unilateralism. When Britain sent a flotilla to win back the Falklands from the Argentinean junta, that was unilateralism.
Unilateral action by a state can be good or bad, moral or immoral, successful or unsuccessful, just like any other type of action. Therefore to be against unilateralism per se is to be against the very possibility of nation-state behaving in a responsible and helpful way in the world. The results of this attitude can be catastrophic. During the Bosnian war in the early 1990s, the thing that was most urgently needed was unilateral action by a strong power in the neighborhood to intervene and restore order. In the old days, such "Great Powers" as Germany or Austria would have been in a position to take on that vital task. But by the early 1990s there was no European nation ready and willing to act unilaterally, only the damnable U.N., whose "peacekeeping" missions made the situation far worse, while the European Union, founded for the very purpose of avoiding decisive action by its members, showed itself totally incapable of taking any steps to stop the slaughter. It was not until the United States stepped in, acting "unilaterally," that the immediate violence was brought to a halt (though the U.S. pursued a multiculturalist concept of order that made a permanent settlement in Bosnia impossible and required American and other troops to stay in the area indefinitely.)
Liberals are against unilateralism for the same reason they are against fundamental individual freedoms such as the private ownership of guns. Since liberals believe in equality, they are against power, because different people inevitably possess different amounts of it and so oppress each other. So liberals oppose private gun ownership, because it suggests differentials of power among individuals, which suggests inequality and oppression. For the same reason, liberals want to restrict the freedom of political organizations to buy political advertising because some candidates and groups will be able to buy more advertising than others, which suggests differentials of power, which suggests inequality and oppression (the recent campaign finance law is to free elections what gun control is to self-defense). And for the same reason, liberals oppose independent action by nation-states because such action suggests differentials of power and thus inequality and oppression. Since freedom of action by persons or polities and the resulting inequalities of power and influence are built into the very structure of existence, what liberals are ultimately aiming for is nothing less than the total repression of the natural order of things. The attempt to eliminate all power must lead to the concentration of all power in a global totalitarian state.
At the same time, even as the liberals and globalists keep pushing for a uniform world system in which no one will be allowed to act as a free entity in his own interests, they are also demanding a radical expansion of human rights. We must understand that this is not a contradiction. The freedom that the liberals seek to destroy is the freedom of men and nations to act responsibly in the pursuit of legitimate ends. The rights that the liberals seek to expand are the "rights" of human beings to have all their needs provided by society.
As an example of this agenda, consider Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which was the basis of the final declaration of the recent U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development:“Human beings … are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”
Now it is one thing to say that a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature is — like happiness itself — a desirable good to which human beings ought to aspire; it is quite another thing to say that human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life. Leaving aside the fact that the demand is logically absurd (how can a person have a "right" to be productive?), it is clear that the liberals have transformed the procedural right to pursue a good life (or, rather, the right not to be arbitrarily prevented from pursuing it) into the substantive right to have a good life. Furthermore, since entitlements imply obligations (a point on which the U.N. is becoming increasingly explicit), it becomes the obligation of all nations to ensure the happiness of every human being on earth. In practice, of course, this means that it will be the duty of the functioning, free, law-abiding, and successful countries — meaning ourselves — collectively to ensure the happiness of everyone living in the disfunctional, unfree, lawless, and unsuccessful countries. In short, the total suppression of national sovereignty and of individual freedom within a global socialist regime. Such suppression, and such a regime, is the ultimate goal of the ascendant liberal ideology which John Fonte has dubbed transnational progressivism, but which could more appropriately be called transnational radicalism.
Preservation of these United States is never a vile motive
God Save America (Please)
So your saying that Sadam will continue to peacefully murder his own people and leave us alone? About the scuds & "bucket of Anthrax": Are you SURE that's all he has after 3 years of no inspectors? What about the the guy who said he was within 1 year of having Nukes? He defected & he was IN CHARGE OF SADAM'S WEAPONS PROGRAM. You'd rather beleive Sadam? You didn't answear my question. Why do you think he threw the inspectors out and hasn't let them back in for YEARS? Speculate on what you think he's up to. By the way, my 20 yr old God-daughter is in the Army. I don't take going to war lightly, and unlike the previous president , who gave us Black Hawk down, and other problems regarding our military, President Bush does not take it lightly either. He's not using Iraq for political gain,wich is what your sick assertation is. This is something that has to be dealt with. We ignore it at our peril. Sadam doesn't have to have a huge army to attack us all he needs is a few nukes or chemical weapons. You said he did't use his chemical weapons on us in the gulf war because we would have wiped him out. That's true. Why do that when he could sell his weaponsto someone like Osama and there by attack us indirectly? You certainly argue like a liberal for someone who claims not to be one. Your knee jerk Patriotism comment doesn't refer to our Constitution in my post # 9? Do tell then,what in post 9 are you referring to as being knee jerk Patriotism?
Future oil prices might go down from an invasion, but not now.
It is a Arab National Socialist regime which seeks to dominate the region? It has used WMD's? It subsides terrorism? It has been tied to the WTC attack of 1993?
Of course, I want to overthrow the corrupt Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Let them have Democratic Republics or Constitutional monarchies.
During the Reagen/Bush administrations they were one of our buddies - UP TO AND AFTER THE TIME THEY GASSED THE KURDS.
Actually, we ended military aid.
Saddam, perhaps inspired by Bush's invasion of Panama, decided to go into Kuwait (for reasons no less flimsy than Bush's). As I recall, that's when the hostilities commenced. But they didn't "attack" us.
BS. We did not occupy all of Panama. WE overthroew a dictator whose forces were kidnapping and terrorizing Americans. We otherow a dictator who ran a drug network.
Iraq invaded a foreign country to annex it.
Are you serious? Do you really think our problems there are this easily solved?
You're not looking long term. Remember that this is a war on terrorism. Terrorism today is almost uniformly defined as islamic. Iraq is the gateway into the middle east. It is a country that is arab and yet hated by most other arabs. It is islamic but hated by most other islamics. It's the ideal next country to reform after afghanistan.
Now we have ties between iraq and oklahoma city, palistinian terrorism, and quite possibly 9-11. Iraq attacked us through their surrogates the terrorists. Iraq continues to support terrorism. It must be destroyed before it destroys us.
And no, Iraq will not be the last. This is a long term war and will continue until islam is no more. Each country that supports terrorism also supports islam. Each country that supports islam also supports terrorism. They are inseparable.
GSA(P)
Because while N korea and china are evil, they are not insane. Saddam is islamic. Something is not quite right there. If he gets killed he figures on getting his 72 virgins and pleasure forever. The man doesn't care about his people or about anything else. He is islamic.
This is not a part of the world that we want plunged into instability, especially now. A civil war between Sunis, Shiites, and Kurds would be worse.
Why and why? Instability in this part of the world means that the islamic factions merely start killing each other off. How could this be a bad thing? These groups already hate us so we are not making any new enemies and if they kill each other we win.
And what happens when Iran becomes the main power in the region? Go off to war against them, I suppose.
Now you're getting the idea. Actually the political climate in Iran is turning greatly in our favor. Most of the population loves the US and hates their own government. Internal revolution should be relatively easy to foment. If the people don't throw off their theocracy then we may need to do it ourselves. Again, the country is not arab and the arabs hate them. The country is islamic but is of a sunni islam while most of the rest of the countries around are shiite (I might have them swapped). The rest of the islamic countries in the mideast distrust iran as much as they distrust us. Taking iran earns us no new enemies and eliminates an old one. We win.
The mideast countries have very little cohesion and very little long range vision (islam doesn't allow creativity). They won't notice that they are being divided and conquered until we want them to notice it. And if they do, what could they do about it.
GSA(P)
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.