Bush strategy says 'get real'

THE big surprise about President George W. Bush's "distinctly American internationalism", outlined last Friday, is that it took so long for Bush to challenge the theme park that is the UN.

UN idealists live in a blue-sky fantasy world. They pursue global social work to mask their failure at global security. Ridding the world of sovereign states is seen as the answer to building an interdependent and peaceful global village.

September 11 was a blue-sky day that exposed, in the most brutal fashion, the need for a realism renaissance about the UN. Idealists scoff at Bush's power politics which liberal thinkers, such as The New York Times editorial writers, deride as "an overly aggressive stance".

Bush is a realist. His national security strategy makes that clear. He will not allow any foreign power to catch up to the US's dominant position. September 11 changed the game, so the rules must change. Pre-emptive action is necessary in dealing with "rogue states and terrorists [who] do not seek to attack us using conventional means".

It's hawkish stuff, but as former National Interest editor Owen Harries said in Quadrant in 1995: "Realism is a dour and pessimistic doctrine. The virtues it most strongly recommends are the unexciting ones of prudence and vigilance." It carries most weight when threats are looming.

The US/UN schism emerges from the fundamental divide between Europe and the US. Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was on the money when he recently argued in Policy Review that Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. They inhabit increasingly different worlds so relationships are strained, messages are mixed.

The US has never been more powerful – economically, culturally, even demographically. It spends more than just about the rest of the world on its military; this year it was $US377 billion ($695.3 billion), to be boosted to $US450 billion by 2007.

Europe is a military mouse. Kagan points out that Europeans spend their money on socially progressive welfare and indulge in their transnational pursuit of collective security in the comforting shadow of the US's enormous military muscle.

Like Europe, the UN operates under what Robert Menzies called the "utterly false dichotomy" that infected the League of Nations between the world wars: so-called intellectuals would ask: "Are you for power politics or are you for collective security?"

Yet, like Europe, the UN engages in its own power politics and theirs is a dangerous game. Under the guise of feel-good language and inclusive politics, it appeases dictators yet delivers blows to soft targets and intervenes in the affairs of Western liberal democracies.

Their social engineering masks the UN's fundamental failure to fulfil its core purpose "to maintain international peace and security" as set out in Article 1 of the UN Charter.

That genuine freedom requires genuine security has not sunk in at UN headquarters. Realists acknowledge power politics and deal with it head-on. Quoting Dr Johnson, Harries describes the realist disposition as follows: "If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity his state of mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves. We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards."

That madman, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, has been in our room for too long. All the UN has managed is a set of Security Council resolutions which Hussein thumbed his nose at for a decade. The UN was touted as the ideal institution for dealing with middle and small powers – an important role today given that countries such as Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya and Pakistan are developing advanced missile capabilities.

The UN would rather invite the madmen into the UN house to wield their sticks at closer range. So Libya's Muammar Gaddafi looks set to chair the UN Human Rights Commission. So the UN recently invited Zimbabwe tyrant Robert Mugabe to a UN summit to address the plight of the world's hungry – the man who turned away 10,000 tonnes of US corn worth about $US10 million because it was genetically modified and seized 90 per cent of the country's white-owned land only to allow much of it to lie fallow while 7 million Zimbabweans faced starvation.

The Hudson Institute's John Fonte calls this brand of UN power politics "transnationalism" – the modern reactionary creed of our age. It's government by special interests with two simple commandments: Democracy is Old Hat; The West is Evil.

"Collective security" rhetoric hides an institution teeming with anti-West power politics: activists who push their own pet causes, Europeans still too frightened to speak of national interest and a large bloc of non-democratic member states. Nothing in yesterday's report of the UN Secretary-General addresses that. When Hussein spouts on about seeking solutions based on "international legitimacy, international law and the UN Charter", it's power politics at work – under the guise of the UN.

We may as well recognise it. As Menzies said, believing that the UN can advance international relations is like believing you can build a house that will then dig its own foundations. It's an engineering dream. Playing its deceptive game of power politics, the creaking UN theme park may just fall in on itself.

"The US has bombed 21 countries since the 2nd world war and has bases in over half the nations of the world."

Let's start by dealing with your preconceptions.

That's a mighty broad statement you've made. And it is loaded with accusatory connotations.

I ask you to:

a. Identify the 21 countries, to confirm that your source is correct. And, then, consider what motivation we might have had in each instance. You would object to the bombing of, say, North Korea? After it had aggressively invaded a free society, South Korea, to whose defense we came -- under the aegis of the UN?

b. "Half the nations in the world"? Really? Of the 31 nations in Europe, for example, I count only three in which the US maintains a permanent base of operations -- all secured by treaty and at the invitation of the host country. I'm unaware of any bases whatsoever on two entire continents -- Africa and South America.

Point being, you've cited as fact what are, in truth, some unsupportable and hyperbolic assertions. I suggest you review your preconceptions in that light.

Then, we can talk...

"http://www.newint.org lists the countries bombed."

And you believe them? They list China in 1950-53, for example. This was at the time of the Korean Conflict. And we took ridiculous measures to avoid doing just that. The reference, I suppose, was to the Yalu River bridges -- on the border between North Korea and Manchuria. Normally, a bombing run is along the bridge's axis. But, the USAF directed the B-29s to fly at right angles to the bridges, over the southern half of the river, expressly so as to avoid an incursion into Chinese airspace.

While on this course, they not only were less likely to damage the bridge, but were very exposed to AAA fire from the Chinese side of the river. While it was not the stated policy to retaliate against this fire, I presume that some unauthorized (and understandable) action was taken. People were getting shot...so they shot back. So, apparently, that is the flimsy basis for the website's claim.

Peru, 1965. Come ON! Says who?

Point being, this website is not interested in propagating accurate information. It is grinding its own axe, just as a U.S. State Department website would do...

"Curiously you have avoided saying wether you condemn or condone US support for terrorism."

I don't need to condemn or condone it. The U.S. has never supported nor condoned terrorism -- meaning groups that attack innocent civilians and third parties.

It is true that, for controlling geopolitical reasons (which are not necessarily "imperialist" or "bad", I would remind you), the U.S. has found itself allied with some relatively unsavory regimes.

The best example, perhaps, is Josef Stalin's USSR in WW II -- if anything, a scurrilous Communist regime with more blood on its hands than even Hitler's Germany.

I, for one, would have a hard time arguing against this alliance, though.

"Do you think the CIA backed coup against Allende..."

If I am not mistaken, knowing what they know now, the population of a free, prosperous and capitalist Chile would, in hindsight, probably deliver a majority vote in favor of Allende's deposition.

"History is littered with US interventions and attacks, some justified, others not."

History would also be replete with interventions by the Greeks, Romans, British, etc. It seems to be the lot of the world's pre-eminent power to become intrinsically more involved in world events than, say, Luxemburg.

I presume that you do not have the perspective of living through WW II nor the Cold War. Consequently, your "real-time" experience in these matters is somewhat limited and your views are greatly influenced by sources whom you have, perhaps, more faith in than they might deserve.

Using "littered" and "attacks" in this context, and assuming that "intervention" is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, suggests this interpretation to me, anyway.

I will grant you and the newint.org website this, though: American intervention in Kosovo and the bombing of Serbia was totally unjustified. It was arguably the most shameful thing that this country has ever done. The act was a mistake and the motivation for its commission was despicable.

That said, in a history spanning over two hundred years, if Kosovo was the worst we've done, that's a record that will stand up well to historical inspection...

"Anyone who suggests that oil is a big influence over Bush government is treated likewise, despite the fact that his government originally contained 51 senior members of Enron."

In the words of the immortal Ronaldus Magnus, "There you go again."

A confirming source and names, please!

And recognize one other salient fact: Enron was not an oil company. They were not involved in the exploration, nor the production, nor the refining nor the marketing of petroleum products.

Nor, obviously, did Enron have any effective influence in the Bush administration. For proof, you can ask those sifting through the ashes...

"This must mean that Bin Laden and Hussein never did those things while the US were providing them with weapons and support, they were just regular nice guys."

Red herrings. In Afghanistan, we never supported bin Laden directly. Only the mujahadeen, as a group, who were fighting the Soviet occupation. In fact, we withdrew from involvement in Afghanistan coincident with the Soviet withdrawal. And I don't believe the Taliban was even organized by the Pakistani ISI or bin Laden active in the country until after we had disappeared from the scene. Check the dates, if you would, please.

I characterized "terrorism" as conducted by a group, not a state. Nevertheless, how long after Hussein gassed the Kurds (innocent civilians) did we withdraw any support and found ourselves at war with him? Hmmmm?

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.