American ‘Unilateralism’ vs. European ‘Multilateralism’

President G. W. Bush’s decision to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein without UN approval has been characterized by many – especially in Europe – as an “assault on international institutions” wherein America is apparently far more dangerous than the Ba’athist dictatorship ever was. Thus we are witnessing a “robust rebirth of American unilateralism” that is a significant reversal of the “internationalist commitment” that every president embraced since the end of WWII.

The source of such charges merit exploration. Specifically, what is the Bush administration’s rationale for making the foreign policy choices that have engendered these charges of unilateralism? Are there any motivations behind Bush’s detractors that should be considered? Who are the main parties involved? What issues have led to a rift amongst such close allies?

Excerpted because it is very long. Offered as a researched source for the arguments the UN's role and why internationalists hate GW Bush so fervently.

That's fairly easy, because Bush doesn't kiss the ass of the UN and blindly sign up for every international treaty which attempts to steal US sovereignty like most US Presidents have done in the recent past. Clinton, Bush Sr., Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson all were will to give us US sovereignty.

Thus we see that charges of the Bush administration being ‘unilateralist’ are to be taken with considerable skepticism. The main accusers -- the Continental Europeans and their sympathizers in the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere -- have an agenda that is not altogether benevolent. The internationalists/multilateralists see that they have no military teeth – individually or collectively. They are not willing to spend what is necessary to exert military power for influence/security without American help, so they expect the U.S. to make up the difference as a subordinate entity. It is possible and perhaps desirable to pursue a goal of a supranational authority or even a singular global regime to secure peace and prosperity for all mankind. This cannot be done, however in a world where governments declare war upon their own people and foster bloodshed abroad. If the free nations of the world are to consolidate their resources to affect world peace, they must first agree to use a judicious combination of economic, diplomatic, political, social -- and yes -- military power to hasten the day when the entire global population lives in freedom.

Didn't have time to read the entire piece, but the last two paras certainly are one of the best synopses of this that I have seen.

So where was the multilateralism when Russia went into the republic of Georgia, Chechynia........

In fact how many wars were EVER sactioned by the UN? Korea, Desert Storm? Any others?

Strange how the country that pays 25% of the UN budget and provides more forces than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD to UN missions. The nation which started and created the UN for all practical purposes.

Strange how this nation is called UNILATTERAL by countries like Germany that claim they "Would not support any military operations" EVEN IF the UN asked for it. But don't worry, after this statement by Schroeder in 2002 during the elections they insured that under NO conditions a resolution on Iraq would be passed which could cause conflict. No matter WHAT the US said, or what Iraq refused/failed to do- this MULTILATERAL thinking nation would never, could never politically support this after they walked this MULTILATTERAL path during an election year.

I can't think of to many other nations that would have even tried to do what the US did. Maybe that is the problem? The US like China, Russia, France, Belgium and practically ALL others should have never asked the UN for approval in the first place.

Strange when you're being called UNILATTERAL by nations like Russia (a list a mile long), the Belgians (Congo), China (Tibet and many others), even our ally Great Britton (Falklands and others) by such MULTILATTERAL nations.

This is so ironic it's funny.

Powell was right. The UN lost ALL credibility as an organization that can contribute in terms of security policies. It's no more than an aid organization incapable of dealing with any security matters. It's a place where big worthless heads make money and nations deal and broker about other issues. Hey- If you give me this I vote this on the security council. Just like Fox when he pulled the US/Mexico boarder issue into the disscussion. Hey- want me to vote this way on Iraq, do this on the US border. Iraq was a side bar conversation. Internal election politics of Germany, Mexico's Border issues, better trade deals for Cameroon and so fourth. Those were the issues that decided the security council vote.

But please tell "US" about UNILATTERALISM.

Red6

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.