Posted on 03/10/2003 11:54:37 AM PST by prairiebreeze
The real battle in the security council is about a new world order
The division between leading members of the United Nations represents a conflict not over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but the underlying goals for the world order. That is not evident in the immediate differences within the security council.
The US and UK believe the international community has finally come to the point of reckoning. The removal of the Iraqi regime's undisputed weapons of mass destruction can no longer be ducked.
The stance of France, Germany and Russia is that removal is desirable but not critical. All their actions, their exaggerated optimism about Dr Blix's efforts and their opposition to a further UN security council resolution flow from the premise that "peace" in the Middle East should take precedence over removing Saddam's threat to that peace. In their view, a Palestinian or Islamic terrorist reaction to military intervention in Iraq is too big a risk. They discount the probability that one day Saddam's weapons will fall into terrorist hands.
In private, the position of most Arab governments in the Middle East is to get the war over and done with as soon as possible. The thought of leaving Saddam in place - armed, emboldened and able to throw his weight around in any direction - is an appalling prospect for Iraq's neighbours.
The thoughts of the European left, in the meantime, lie elsewhere. "Opposition to war" is restoring unity and impetus after the introspection and irrelevance that follows electoral defeat. For many, this is a boon best left uncomplicated by deeper thought.
France, in particular, faced with a choice between full war and the status quo, has wider European concerns. As a French socialist friend remarked the other day, this is a fight over the future direction of Europe and its orientation to America. Europe must "belong to the French perspective", which sees Europe acting as a "Gaullist" counterweight to the United States.
This accounts for French fury over the stance adopted by the "new" European member states. Like Britain, Spain and Italy, they share a vision of a more united Europe continuing to work in close partnership with an internationalist US.
Germany, too, defines its national interest in a different way from Britain. Fifty years of European integration and the end of the cold war have made Germans reluctant to support overseas military adventures. The German chancellor cannot backtrack now, even if he wanted to, especially when he has very difficult economic and labour reforms to navigate through the trade unions, social democrats and Greens.
Against this background it all becomes slightly less surprising that Dr Blix should choose to place his emphasis where he does.
The international issue bringing to the surface all these underlying tensions happens to be Iraq. However, the real fundamental battle being fought out in the cockpit of the security council is the very character of the international system and the circumstances justifying military intervention in the future.
Two different ideas of the international system are now emerging. One is the multipolarists' view that for America to exercise its power unrestrained is destabilising and counter-productive, not least from the standpoint of America's own national interest; and that the international system should be one in which a number of competing centres of strength, including Europe, Russia and China, provide a counterweight to American power.
The second is what could be termed the multilateralists' view.
This accepts the realpolitik of American global leadership and that US engagement, however difficult, is essential for the world's security, Middle East peace and to achieve a conception of global justice based on shared values and prosperity; and that the best way to harness this power is by making America comfortable with the use of multilateral institutions that are consistent and reliable vehicles for international including, as a last resort, military action.
France is the main cheerleader for the multipolarists, Britain for the multilateralists. But the reason why the outcome of the disagreement over Iraq is so important is not because either French or British ideas have to win but because, in the US administration, another battle is raging in which a much more significant force is in play, that of unabashed unilateralism. This recognises no restraint on American action.
If the multilateralists lose in New York, it is not the multipolarists who will be the victors but the out-and-out unilateralists in Washington. They will feel justified in arguing against ever going down the UN route or its like again.
That is why it is crucial for the UN to act decisively in implementing resolution 1441 this week, not because American arguments must prevail but because American unilateralists must not feel vindicated.
When the immediate Iraqi crisis is behind us, the bigger challenge will be to re-think the Atlantic alliance as the core of this system.
Europe should seek a renewed bargain or pact with America in the exercise of its power, but in return our emphasis on diplomacy, persuasion and multilateral pressure should also be properly utilised. As the prime minister has said, the US must listen back.
The changes of mindset required on Europe's part in moving towards this fresh bargain are, first, a recognition that the EU collectively is currently punching below its weight in the world because of its divisions and its lack of investment in military capacity.
Second, while Europe may prefer to use its military forces in peacekeeping and nation-building activities, we should not divide transatlantic responsibilities into "hard" cop, "soft" cop roles.
The third shift in thinking is that Europe has consciously to set out to win back the confidence and trust it has foregone in Washington DC, foreswearing ineffective high moral lectures and recognising the real destructive weapons threat to us all.
In truth, having to compromise in order to bring its allies along, and fighting by "committee", as they see it, will be harder for the Americans to swallow than any concession by Europe.
No agreement stands a chance of happening, though, if America is pushed into a corner this week.
Compromise is essential. If this fails, Britain will face a hugely difficult choice. It is tragic that military action could occur without full UN authority, when the case for action is so clear-cut and justified by the UN itself. But it would be an equal tragedy for America to fight alone and victory to be handed on a plate to the unilateralists in Washington, with much wider and longer lasting consequences for the future of the world than the fate of Saddam Hussein. Let us still hope it does not come to that.
· Peter Mandelson is a former secretary of state for Northern Ireland.
Prairie
I daresay fighting by committee or with the UN won't be attempted again anytime soon.
I suspect that Chirac's preference for the multipolar model over the multilateral one is simple - France will arrogate to herself a leading role in the former; in the latter she will participate in proportion to her actual strength, not her personal sense of self-entitlement. That is a very different lineup. France's loud and outraged cries of "do you want to live in a world where the U.S. can behave like this?" are failing to drown out similar reservations from other EU members about living in a Europe in which France can behave like this.
Well now, that is the #1 issue for our President isn't it?
I see it as galling!
Do they work correctly after being dropped?
Do they work correctly after being dropped?
Yippie-kai-yay, motherf*****s
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.