Howard Owens has an entry today which takes President Bush to task for his incompetent foreign policy.
I didn't vote for Bush, and all of this brings rushing back the reasons why -- he just isn't well educated about the world. I think he's proven to have many great qualities that I didn't initially recognize. I admire his resolve and his tenacity in protecting America. But he simply doesn't understand how the world works.
As I remarked briefly (well briefly for me anyway) in his comments, I have a different take. I think he understands how the world works, and is working to change it.
Global politics is the most corrupt game ever played, and the recent UN Security Council debacle is just the latest example. Howard suggests that France knows exactly how dangerous it would be to leave Hussein in power with his arms intact, but that Bush should have done more to persuede them to take action. We should have flatttered them, played up to them, used their sence of vanity to get them to go along with us.
This reveals the fundamental flaw in the UN that has lead it to become as irrelevant as the League of Nations. Most of the member nations only act when it is in their own interest to do so. Far from achieving global consensus, the UN is a brothel, filled with prostitutes selling their support to the highest bidder, eager to gain power, money, or influence for their own country.
Our President is refusing to play the john to France's whore, and I applaud him for it.
To the UN, whether a certain course of action is necessary or right is a secondary concern at best. To many, it doesn't matter that Hussein is in violation of multiple resolutions; it doesn't matter that he has slaughtered thousands of his own people; it doesn't matter that he represents one of the biggest threats to stability in the Middle East, as he possesses both WMD and a willingness to use them; it doesn't matter that he's lied over and over about his weapons programs. Just today, we find out that he does have mobile weapons labs, despite years of denials. But none of that really matters; all that really matters is prestige and power.
According to Howard's thesis, France refuses to support military intervention not on the merits of the case, but because we didn't pay her enough attention, and he blames that on President Bush's foreign policy bungling.
If believing that nations should act in the best interest of the world because it is the right thing to do, rather than having to be paid to do so is bungling, then I guess he's right. But I call it idealism. The President believes, and I do too, that a thing should be done because it is right, not because you get paid to do it. It's the difference between being a mercenary and a soldier. Sure, it's naive, but maybe we need a little idealism these days. Bush has always been plain spoken; many who don't know him are surprised by the simple fact that he says what he means. I guess that's not popular in diplomatic circles, but it certainly is a refreshing change.
I think one only has to look at the difference between what Bush Sr. did during his Gulf War and this one with Dubya to see his diplomatic failings. Anti-American sentiment is growing around the world. According to the Pew Research Center, many Europeans (regardless of where their government stands) have less favourable views of America and that's definitely not a good thing. It's also something that Bush Sr. was able to avoid.
The practical problem that his poor diplomacy has caused is that of Turkey. Turkey sent troops to Gulf War I without much prodding, but this time isn't willing to let U.S. troops be based in Turkey even with a $15 billion "gift", though they are attempting to reconsider.
Posted by: Manish on March 18, 2003 7:59 PMI forgot to mention the obvious point that France and Germany went from active support of Gulf War I (France by sending troops, Germany by sending money as it's not allowed to send troops overseas per its constitution) to opposing Gulf War II.
Posted by: Manish on March 18, 2003 8:29 PMManish, the sticking point in Turkey revolved around the Turks desire to enter northern Iraq, and take control of the autonomous Kurd villages there. Turkey wanted the US to let them do this in exchange for using Turkish bases to launch a northern front. Bush refused, offering increased aid instead. The Turks held firm.
What sort of diplomatic compromise would you have suggested? Allowing the Turks to invade Kurdistan? There are times when our objectives and those of our allies are so different that there can be no compromise. Such was the case with Turkey. However, now that the US has finalized plans to go ahead without Turkish support, the Turk gov't is reconsidering its intransigence, and may allow US troops after all.
As for France and Germany, your point would only be valid if it were demonstrated that france and Germany had no other agenda behind their refusal to back the US. That simply is not the case. France doesn't oppose the US from some lofty principle; they demonstrated that today when they said they would join in the attack if chemical/biological weapons were used. They were against military intervention for two reasons. 1) They didn't want their role in supporting the re-arming and re-building of Iraq to be exposed.
2) They oppose it because they have a geo-political agenda. They, particularly the French, want to set themselves up as a countering force to the US. The facts of the case are irrelevant; if the US supports it, they will oppose it. Chirac as much as admitted that when he said France would veto ANY resolution, regardless of the wording.
I was specifically referencing the point of the article that you noted that Bush had failed in diplomacy which I agree with. The original Turkish vote was lost by like 4 votes or something. If the war had been more popular with the Turkish people or the Administration had shown more of a desire to engage the world rather than being isolationist, I think it's quite conceivable that they would have gotten those 4 votes.
"They didn't want their role in supporting the re-arming and re-building of Iraq to be exposed."
This is as bad as the it's about the oil arguments. If memory serves, Steven den Beste first introduced this notion and it has been taken as gospel with the pro-war crowd and has no basis in fact other than some pro-war types trying to figure out why France would be opposed to war. The fact that Chirac is doing what 80% his population wants him to do seems to be lost on the pro-war folks.
Let's also remember that France is a market economy just like the U.S. Some French companies may well have sold stuff to Iraq, but that doesn't somehow mean that the government is behind them or condones it or bases foreign policy on it. If it were that simple, all that America would have to do was assure the French that they won't reveal any French connections when they seize Baghdad. In the same way, almost every Canadian subsidiary of every major U.S. company does business with Cuba..this doesn't mean that the U.S. government somehow condones that activity.
In terms of your geo-political argument, you are forgetting that France was in favour of both the first Gulf War, sending a lot of troops and equipment, as well as in favour of the actions in Kosovo. What has changed? I would argue that if Bush had acted more like his father we wouldn't have come to this point of alienating allies. If he had decided to go to the U.N. first rather than acting like he wasn't and then deciding that he would after the polls showed that he had to things probably would have gone smoother. If he actually was serious about disarming Iraq rather than wanting regime change all along, things might have worked out diplomatically.
Posted by: Manish on March 19, 2003 2:16 AM