« [Update] The News of the Times in Review: A Wedge in Public Opinion | Home | Howard Jarvis Lives? »
Bush versus Truman on the UN
The White House announced recently that neither President Bush nor the Secretary of State would attend the 60-year anniversary of the founding of the UN in San Francisco. Many will read this as a rebuff of the world body – and indeed it is. But it is also a gesture by Bush of disrespect for America’s own history, traditions, and accomplishments. Bush’s no-show in San Francisco is the latest chapter in what is becoming a thick non-fiction book that chronicles the administration’s missed opportunities to use international institutions and agreements to strengthen America’s global authority and advance its interests.
Since we at America Abroad and others are debating the differences between Bush and liberal internationalism, it is useful to recall how Harry Truman saw the birth of the UN six decades back. It helps us identify the unique intellectual synthesis of realism and liberalism that informed FDR, Truman and the post-WWII architects of America’s global order – a tough-minded American idealism that has all but vanished inside today’s Washington beltway.
Since we at America Abroad and others are debating the differences between Bush and liberal internationalism, it is useful to recall how Harry Truman saw the birth of the UN six decades back. It helps us identify the unique intellectual synthesis of realism and liberalism that informed FDR, Truman and the post-WWII architects of America’s global order – a tough-minded American idealism that has all but vanished inside today’s Washington beltway.
In fact, Truman’s very first decision as president after the death of FDR on April 12, 1945, was to go forward with the San Francisco conference. To Truman, the UN was both a diplomatic tool and an American ideal – and it was a symbol of America’s postwar leadership and commitment to an updated internationalism. It would provide "international machinery" to help keep the peace by facilitating cooperation among states to confront aggression. It would also embody global aspirations for a new world order – aspirations such as those voiced by FDR and Churchill in the 1941 Atlantic Charter statement on war aims. And it would reflect an American determination to breach what Truman called the "mental Maginot line" that left the U.S. seeking security by withdrawing from the world. The American people agreed – and the Senate ratified the UN Charter in July 1945 by an overwhelming vote of 89 to 2.
What is interesting is the mind set of Truman and other tough-minded moderates and liberals of his day. He was a liberal internationalist and a realist. Truman himself had admired Woodrow Wilson and the campaign for a League of Nations. He also traveled the same path as FDR and others during the inter-war period in seeking a more "realist" sort of postwar settlement that combined a universal organization and rules with greater realms of authority for the major powers, anchored in the UN Security Council. Of course, the UN did not become the embodiment of a global concert of powers hoped for by FDR or Truman – the Cold War dashed that postwar vision. But the UN did provide a U.S.-inspired framework for the promulgation of human rights norms (most notably, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that launched a fifty-year world-wide human rights revolution that the Bush administration now seeks to tap into and promote. The UN also provided international authority for the use of force to turn back aggression (e.g. Korea in 1950, Kuwait in 1991), reinstall governments (Haiti in 1994), and overturn despotic ones (Afghanistan, 2001). The UN also helped facilitate the settlement of the Suez crisis in 1956 and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Moreover, as detailed in a major new RAND study on the UN’s role in nation building, the global body has been remarkably successful – and certainly underappreciated – in peacekeeping and democracy building over the decades.
But the point I want to make is really about Truman and the American diplomatic "class of 1945." They embodied a distinctive blend of realism and liberalism – laced with American-style idealism. Truman is an icon of the tough-minded American national security president - a model for all those that have followed, including George W. Bush. Truman was willing to use force, champion American interests, and stand up to Stalin and Molotov. But he was also an idealist. As Stephen Schlesinger notes, for fifty years Harry Truman carried around in his wallet several verses of his favorite poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson – "Lockesley Hall" – which evoked the universal spirit of humanity and a vision of the day when a "parliament of man" and "federation of the world" would put an end to war. But he was also a realist. He most likely agreed with his Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who said in 1946 that the UN was still a collection of sovereign states – "they are still nations; and no more can be expected of this forum for political adjustment than the sum total of the contributions. In the Arab proverb, the ass that went to Mecca remained an ass, and a policy has little added to it by its place of utterance." Still, Truman saw the possibility that the UN could facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes and reinforce American leadership and authority around the world.
Speaking to the American people at the end of the San Francisco conference, Truman said that "no matter how great our strength . . . we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please." Truman argued that this was the price each nation must pay for a global set of rules that served everyone’s long-term interests. "And what a reasonable price that is," he concluded.
This distinctive blend of realism and liberal idealism has vanished in the Bush-era diplomatic "class of 2005." Truman and his classmates did not see a conflict between a plain spoken American toughness and a vision of the United States working with and through the UN – and other political and security organizations. They crafted a uniquely American discourse on power, the pursuit of national interests, and global institutions that underlay the explosive American-led order building efforts of that generation. The class of ‘05 might do well to recall the accomplishments and ideas of the class of ‘45.
Advertisement
John,
I consider myself a Truman Democrat, and one of the reasons that I frequent blogs like this one is to remind myself that I'm not alone--because if I restricted my time to listening what our Democratic leadership is saying, I'd have to run screaming from the party.
The attitudes that you describe are well represented among the Democratic intelligentsia; I see them all the time in places like the New Republic and the DLC Blueprint. I also, however, see them in the pages of the Weekly Standard and Commentary. The prominent Democrats who come closest to espousing such ideas--Senators like Lieberman and Biden, and likely future cabinet officials like Holbrooke--do not have large followings within the party (see: 2004 primary returns). I agree that the Bush administration lacks the combination you espouse--but I wonder where you see more of it on our own side of the aisle.
Furthermore, I also consider myself a Truman Democrat because his general approach worked, as did many of his ideas--but certainly not all of them. The Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Bretton Woods organizations have all been enormous forces for good. The UN has not. Despite occasionally getting something right or performing well at a bureaucratic assignment somewhere, the UN is clearly a net negative in the world today.
I am at a loss how anyone who cares about peace, human rights, individual libeerty, or basic human dignity can support the UN. Despite the high hopes surrounding its founding, the UN has become a bastion of barbarism. It serves mostly to legitimate regimes arising through force rather than the consent of their governed, to consign minority groups to vagaries of the national majorities governing them, to promote antisemitism, and to alleviate the pressure that stable countries should feel to resettle refugees fortunate enough to escape the hellish realities that engulfed their homes. An organization that affords equal membership privileges to free and unfree governments is flawed by design, and beyond reform. We should be working to form new, better organizations, and to shift the few things that the UN does well to organizations capable of upholding the ideals of liberalism.
The best way to honor Truman's memory and to serve his goals is to admit that his attempt at institutionalizing them failed miserably. It's time to learn from that failure and to try again with something new.
June 17, 2005 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
In thinking through these issues, I think it's crucial to recognize that there is no conflict at all between being realistic and being idealistic. Being realistic is about accurately assessing the world as it is. Being idealistic is about having high standards for your own conduct and a noble vision of how the world might be. The opposite of 'idealistic' is 'unprincipled'; the opposite of 'realistic' is 'trapped in fantasy'. These are two completely different things, and they are not in conflict.
Actually, if you want to be an idealist, you have to be a realist as well: how are you going to figure out what needs doing if you don't look honestly at your situation? Any sort of wilful blindness or distorting vision is something that a serious idealist has to get rid of.
Once you see this, then you can be a wholehearted idealist without feeling that you somehow also have to be starry-eyed or naive. And you can also think: distorting views of the world are not all "idealistic". If, when confronted by a mugger, you think, 'well, I'm sure he's realy a nice person', you are being unrealistic, but by the same token, if, when confronted by Martin Luther King, you think 'well, I'm sure he's just cynically acting in pursuit of his own self-interest', you are also and equally unrealistic.
That said: the people who gave us the Marshall Plan, the UN, and Bretton Woods were idealistic, but they were also profoundly realistic. They thought hard about what the world was actually like, and acted accordingly.
Bush and those around him, by contrast, may have "ideals", but they are so disconnected from action and from sober assessment of reality that they might as well not have them. (I mean, if you can not notice the conflict between the second inaugural address and blocking an inquiry into the Uzbek government's actions at Andijan, then your ideals are so disconnected from reality that they might as well not exist.)
Much more strikingly, however, they are totally unconcerned with thinking through the means to whatever ends they have. I mean, we can all sit here being baffled about exactly why they went into Iraq, but what's really clear is that there is NO purpose they could possibly have had that would make sense of things like failing to plan for the aftermath of invasion, failing to secure weapons caches and WMD sites, and failing to provide remotely adequate troops levels. They are deeply and profoundly unrealistic, and this makes almost everything they do come out horribly wrong.
Myself, I support the goal of extending freedom around the world. I also think that in general invading countries is a really bad way to do this. Much better would be to constantly stand ready to help democratic movements when they arise, to work with our allies to reform their institutions, and also to combat, through our actions, the perceptions of the US in the Middle East that have been so damaging to us.
Thus, I thought that it would have been a really good thing to really concentrate on doing Afghanistan right. We should have provided security throughout as much of the country as possible, thereby freeing people from having to depend on warlords. We should have spent a lot of money on reconstruction. We should have done whatever we could to promote the rule of law, economic redevelopment, infrastructure, and civil society. And then we should have left, no strings attached.
That would have given us our best shot at not having Afghanistan revert to being an al Qaeda base or a narcostate. But it would also have been very, very hard for anyone to spin as the US just being in it for the oil, wanting to oppress Muslims, etc. It would have provided a huge counterexample to current Middle Eastern views about us, and it would have done so on the border of two states, Iran and Pakistan, where we should really want those views to be challenged.
You might disagree with this specific example, but that's the sort of thing I think a realistic idealism should be all about.
June 17, 2005 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoy your responses, including this one. It makes a good point. I am open to new organizations and mechanisms -- this post is trying to identify a distinctive view about how power, interests and institutions (of whatever kind) work together to promote America's global position. More on this soon.
June 17, 2005 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
There were some great stories coming out of San Francisco during that time. Talking about those may do some good; it was a very dramatic event that had the whole world's attention. Retelling some of those stories, in a good forum, may have some healthy ripple effects. I recall reading some Dean Acheson anecdotes that were fantastic, and showed what tough American diplomacy is really all about.
June 17, 2005 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am at a loss how anyone who cares about peace, human rights, individual libeerty, or basic human dignity can support the UN."
I don't see how anyone who believes in the concept of one man one vote can support the Senate. But it's what we've got, and it's not currently possible to change it.
So with the U.N. It's better than the alternative, which is nothing.
June 17, 2005 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plain Speaking: An Oral Autobiography of Harry Truman, by Merle Miller
And yeah, that McCullough guy, too, but then you already knew that.
June 17, 2005 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting question. Is the U.N. better than nothing?
What would the Cold War have looked like had the U.S. and the USSR communitcated only bilaterally, and not through the Security Council?
What would have happened at the end of the British Mandate in Palestine had the UN not first put a global imprimatur on the partition plan, and then set up multi-generational refugee camps for all non-Jewish refugees?
Could the non-aligned movement have emerged and grown without a General Assembly in which to preen?
How would the Korean crisis have been resolved if a coalition of anti-Communist forces had had to declare war, rather than moving in under the "UN police action" umbrella?
How would a terrorist like Yasir Arafat have established his stateman-like reputation without a UN invitation to cataput him into the category of "global player"?
Would the EU or NATO have moved faster to end the Balkan bloodletting had the UN not created the illusion of peacekeeping?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but I do think that they're all worth pondering. The most significant question, though, is the one with real operational impact and policy implications:
Is the presence of a failed world body, nominally committed to human rights, the rule of law, and liberal ideals but demonstrably ineffective at promoting any of them, deterring the emergence of effective international organizations serving those goals?
I don't know the answer to that one, either. But I do think that it deserves to be asked and analyzed.
The great may be an enemy of the good, but often so is the status quo.
June 17, 2005 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the nod.
My queries to many of the posts on America Abroad, though, have to do with a gap between theory and implementation.
As I understand the "Bush Doctrine," it is that tyranny keep people poor, miserable, fightened, and violent. It thus makes the world a more dangerous place. Our own past support of "friendly tyrants" contributed to the problem. We must stop supporting tyrants, and elevate human rights above either stability or Westpahlian sovereignty. This new focus will curb terrorism and promote long-term American interests. Other nations, and international organizations, capable of recalibrating themselves to join us in this new posture are wonderful allies with whom we should work. Those who remain mired in the tolerance of tyranny are, if not evil themselves, certainly part of the problem.
Obviously there are all sorts of nuances with which one could (and perhaps should) quibble, but the doctrine itself probably would have been labeled "leftist" until fairly recently. Why do we (i.e., Democrats) exert so much energy distancing ourselves from a doctrine that we've been espousing for decades? When Bush issued his National Security Strategy in 2002, where were the Democratic voices shouting "Welcome to the cause of human rights! Now that we agree on the ends, let's debate the means?" I heard a few murmurs in this direction (Lieberman, Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton), but nothing terribly loud--and certainly nothing from party leaders.
Most of my problems with the Bush foreign policy stem from incompetence. This administration's diplomacy is consistently ham-handed, it never allocates resources sufficient to do a job correctly, and it seems to operate on best-case scenario planning with no thought given to contingencies. It has no clue how to handle either Iran or North Korea, remains much too tolerant of support for terror from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Palestinian Authority, and doesn't even seem interested as much of Latin America risks sliding into a Chavista revolution.
I know that many people complain that this sort of critique devolves to nothing more than "do a better job." But why is that so horrible? What is wrong with a doctrine that values individual dignity and human rights more than sovereignty and bureaucratic nicety? Why can't Democrats and Republican share a commitment to such a doctrine--call it an American doctrine--and simply debate the implementational details?
June 17, 2005 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting point to take up (that is, why aren't Democrats rallying to the Bush Doctrine - after all it is our own). The answer lies in the fact that George Bush is not just incompetent, it is that he is outright duplicitous. For all the high-flown rhetoric championing a global mission to spread liberty, George Bush is actually engaging in exactly the power politics he decried (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Israel...). So Bush does not represent incompetence in reach of a goal, but instead Bush constitutes a lethal danger that could turn our dearly held goal into a parody of itself. He will ruin our ideal of championing democracy in the minds of the American people.
Now the problem with Democrats who work too closely with Bush (Lieberman especially comes to mind) is that they give him bipartisan cover as he wreaks havoc on our ideal. Given the public's distrust for nation-building and foreign aid, Bush's misadventure couched in the language of spreading freedom (even as he fails to do so) could ruin the agenda for decades.
June 17, 2005 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking back to the class of 1945, we must not forget that it was an age (prior to the 1st Russian test in 1949) of our short-lived nuclear dominance. Today, President Bush and probably more emphatically Vice-President Cheney, would argue that we simply do not have the luxury to "deny ourselves the license to do as we please," with "rogue states" seeking weapons of mass destruction.
We must also not blame President Bush from the shift of liberal idealism/realism towards imperialism/neo-conservatism. I would argue that much of this leadership and foreign policy discourse died with the election of Richard Nixon.
What I find most interesting about the rhetoric of President Bush, myself being a Democrat and (I would say) very 'liberal', is that I find his foreign policy rhetoric somewhat appealing. I think we all do in a way. However, I would assume most of us posting or reading this board know better than to believe any or most of it. I am against the nomination of John Bolton, but the tone of some of the comments read on this board seem to imply most of us would agree that the UN requires serious reform ( I would argue as saying anything as extreme as The Informationist, though). If reform is needed in the most legless international body, then who better than a guy known for cracking skulls, so to speak? I think we need a more pragmatic diplomat, of course.
We lie to ourselves when we discuss the class of '45 and '05 and attempt to draw comparisons. It would be nice if President Bush had any idea of Truman Doctrine or thoughts (even if he disagreed with it) on his leadership during the late 1940s. This is day-dreaming, and I think we should do ourselves on the Left some good by closely examining the Republican agendas and actions of the last 40 years, besides the obvious parallels. Democrats will find their political success in answering the basic values and strategies emplaced by the Right since 1968.
I don't defend President Bush, but I don't blame entirely him, either. The Democrats are at fault for what was lost in 2000. It should not have even been close. However, we lose because we allow the Right to seem a strong mix of realism and liberalism. It is no coincidence their greatest hero was a former Hollywood star.
June 17, 2005 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Informationist:
Who brought peace and democracy to Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Cambodia, not to mention East Timor? Not the US, but the UN.
The UN is far from perfect and could use serious reform. But it is the only forum for the whole world, warts and all. If you'd rather have a "club of democracies," then you'll have to tell us who gets to decide who's in and who's out. And then what do you do with the others? Lock them up?
As for Arafat, I'll remind you that, under Clinton, he didn't camp out at the UN, he camped out at the White House!
If this and your other examples are all you've got against the UN, your case is rather weak. And by the way, to refer to a group of over 100, mostly nonwhite, nations as "preening" could easily be construed as, well, racist. (Though I am certain that's not what you had in mind.)
June 17, 2005 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilzoy, very well said on realism and idealism. I am at a point now
where I am not sure I see much value in discussing foreign policy
predilections in these terms.
Realists can believe those they identify as idealists are impractical,
insufficiently tough-minded, given to running fool's errands, frequently
at great costs to the US in blood, treasure and credibility.
Idealists can believe those they identify as realists are cynical, timid, lacking any vision for a better world, far too prone to perceive and favor stability.
So just what utility does this schema have other than as a sort of coded way to put someone else in an ideological box you don't like and don't want others to like, either?
If one views the Truman Administration policies of NATO and the Marshall
Plan in particular as instrumental in helping the US to prevail in the
Cold War, as I do, it's hard to imagine a more idealistic result resulting from the adoption of policies advocated by those who are considered, and considered themselves, quintessential realists.
People in both camps believe their policies will lead to a better reality than the alternative approaches. Realists in general would probably lengthen the time frame of their expectations for this to take place.
The system does not appear to be letting me break up this post into paragraphs so I'll come back in a minute with a first thought on a different schema that I at least find somewhat more helpful than realist/idealist, because it seems to me to represent a more important (although very rough, of course) line of demarcation at this point in our history.
June 17, 2005 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would be a better, more useful shorthand than idealist/realist?
Personally I find a "Firefighters" vs. "Architects" heuristic a more fundamental line of demarcation for understanding how people look at the world differently in these times than "realist" and "idealist".
Firefighters and Architects tend to differ in how tenable they believe the international status quo and the trajectory of international affairs is.
If you believe that a trajectory of foreign affairs that does not include bold initiatives by the US is tenable, at least, that on our present path we are not likely headed towards global catastrophe, or that at any rate we are likely to do better with a more cautious, muddling through approach, then you are a Firefighter. (Some might prefer the term "conservative").
By contrast, if you believe the status quo in international affairs is untenable, that absent some major changes in the international order we are headed towards catastrophe, you will feel compelled to push for much bolder changes in the international order, and on a shorter time frame. You are an Architect. (Some might prefer the term "reformer" or even "liberal".)
At some times in the course of world events there might be said to be a greater need for the dominant power(s) to be an Architects. At other times there is a greater need for Firefighters.
This way of looking at things is consonant with Informationist's post #8, suggesting that many Dems would be comfortable with some of Bush's rhetoric but differ in major ways over means and priorities.
Using this schema, I would fall out as a Dem architect. I am sympathetic to what I know about your views, G. John (what I understand to be implications of After Victory). Likewise, I heard Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haass give a talk the other day at the New America Foundation on his new book The Opportunity. Haass I would say shows just how unhelpful the current realist/idealist framework by perfectly straddling it. I found his overall take to be quite sensible.
This Administration would represent a wannabe Architect which at the moment is careening towards flunking out of architecture school. Again, I apologize for the poor readability of this post, as again the system does not appear to be allowing me to break it up into paragraphs.
June 17, 2005 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Still, Truman saw the possibility that the UN could facilitate the peaceful settlement of disputes and reinforce American leadership and authority around the world. "
Yes, that was a possibility in Truman's time. But we have quite a history to the contrary since then. You would have to make an argument against the actual history of the institution since then . The UN is awful at facilitating peaceful settlement and hasn't reinforced American leadership and authority in decades. The best that might be said for the modern UN is that it has set up some good semi-autonomous side organizations like the World Health Organization and (maybe) the World Bank.
Just because Truman saw a possibility, doesn't mean that the possibility has played out well.
June 18, 2005 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sebastian Holsclaw wrote:
The UN is awful at facilitating peaceful settlement and hasn't reinforced American leadership and authority in decades.
East Timor is a recent counter-example to the first part of your sentence. The principal reason the UN is not more effective at handling international crises is that America does not want it to be more effective – in case it develop solutions America does not like. The creation of a permanent UN peacekeeping force, for example, is the nightmare of the American "black helicopter" brigade. Another example of American negativity is its permanent veto of any Security Council resolution criticizing the brutal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
Ironically, the United Nations Transitional Administrator in East Timor was the highly respected Sergio Vieira de Mello who was killed while leading the UN mission to Iraq. I have no doubt that Iraq, America and the World would be a lot safer today had he been running Iraq rather than L. Paul Bremer. America is now reaping a poor harvest from the seeds of antipathy to the UN it planted before the war even started.
The World does not want America to bear the full burden of making it a safer place and Iraq has demonstrated that a lone America is not capable of bearing that burden. American "leadership and authority" at the UN will be reinforced only when America respects legitimate opinions of other Nations. John Bolton will do nothing to increase respect for America at the UN.
June 18, 2005 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The UN is awful at facilitating peaceful settlement and hasn't reinforced American leadership and authority in decades."
Sebastian has a valid point, but it isn't helped by hyperbole. The UN has had a number of prominent successes (East Timor, among ohers) as well as failures (Rwanda) in the last 15-odd years. In most of the cases of failure, you could make a strong argument that better US leadership would have made a difference.
As for enhancing US leadership in the past decades, I can't believe that Sebastian wouldn't remember the first US-Iraq War, nor Bosnia, nor the US invasion of Afghanistan and the UN resolutions authorizing and supporting US actions there.
June 18, 2005 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
the "Bush Doctrine," it is that tyranny keep people poor, miserable, fightened, and violent.
I'm not sure where you get this statement of the "Bush Doctrine," unless you're only counting his words. Bush seems to have no qualms whatsoever about supporting "friendly tyrants." Witness the picture of him holding hands with the Saudi prince and the way he treats Musharaf.
June 18, 2005 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rwanda was an abysmal failure, but let's not forget who blocked UNSC action on the matter:, yes, the good old U.S of A.
And now the Bushies are spitting on kyoto, on the land mine treaty, on the nuclear test ban treaty, on the antiballistic missile treaty, on the convention of the rights of the child, on the biological warfare treaty, on the international criminal court treaty.
Fine, the US can do without the rest of the world. Iraq is such a fine demonstration of our omnipotence.
A world under the sole leadership of the US is one we should all dread. Sadly, the US is no longer a progressive voice in the world today. In matters of liberal democracy, it is about a quarter century behind.
June 18, 2005 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The United Nations. Truman's great vision was the UN and what it could accomplish. Has this vision proven true? only partially - the common example is East Timor. Have there been failures - sure.
This sounds like many of the complaints about the United Nations - right (it supports abortion etc.) and left (it permits a voice to regimes we don't like[actually a complaint of the right]). Where is it written, though, that we always get our way? And as far as US influence in the United Nations - we have no one to blame but ourselves. We don't pay our dues - we don't support the institution etc. Were we to participate more we would get a lot farther in terms of getting what we want. And, we would also get a lot farther in terms of reforming the institution.
"An organization that affords equal membership privileges to free and unfree governments is flawed by design, and beyond reform." This comment assumes that it is better to exclude said regimes from the table rather than have all nations in the conversation. This is an unsupportable thesis. We are far better off with all nations included. That was the point of the UN in the first place.
June 19, 2005 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As for enhancing US leadership in the past decades, I can't believe that Sebastian wouldn't remember the first US-Iraq War, nor Bosnia, nor the US invasion of Afghanistan and the UN resolutions authorizing and supporting US actions there."
The first US-Iraq war led to 15 more years of Saddam's genocide and supporting of terrorism and instability in the Middle East because the UN would not authorize destruction of Saddam's regime. In fact the entire UN response to Iraq has always been a series of half-measures. The UN had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the first war. It had to be constantly forced to look at inspections seriously despite the fact that it had already been fooled once on Saddam's nuclear program. Most importantly, when Saddam refused to allow inspectors back in to the counrty in 1998 the international community shrugged its shoulders. It strengthened sanctions only after repeated pleading from the Clinton administration, and then immediately began undermining them through the corruption of the Food-for-Oil program. In 2002, Russia France and Germany were all asking for sanctions to be dropped despite the fact that inspectors had been barred from the country for 4 years. If the UN had done its duty in 1998-2002, there would have been no question about WMD to be argued in 2002. The UN vis-a-vis Iraq has been an unmitigated failure for more than 15 years.
The Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo battles don't show UN strength or general utility either. The US had to act without UN approval initially, and the EU support was pathetic in the first years even though it was on their doorstep. The slaughter that went on in Srebrenica directly under the watchful eyes and typically not-interested-in-intervention arms of UN 'peacekeepers' should not exactly be considered a UN triumph.
The anti-Semitism of UN organs is horrific, and completely explains why the US does not allow UN intervention in Israel. I also note that the UN-run 'refugee camps' tend to be safe-houses for terrorists.
In Afghanistan we got UN resolutions and almost no international support for nearly a year. I think Afghanistan is an excellent case to examine clearly, because it shows how pathetic the international response is likely to be even in the very clearest of cases. In Afghanistan, the French wanted target by target veto authorization--a demand which would have changed targetting times from 1 hour to 3 days--not a way to win a war. And this was win their entire contribution was to send a useless carrier that didn't have the range to actually support anything in landlocked Afghanistan. The international community has no excuse for its tepid response in trying to rebuild Afghanistan, it can't claim it wasn't consulted, it can't claim the US went alone, it can't claim that there was no reason to go, yet the response is still pathetic. At no point has the entire international commitment exceeded the low thousands in numbers of troops, and three times the French government resisted increasing troop levels for the Afghanistan elections--they only relented at the very end after a very public shaming session from the Bush administration. Afghanistan is a classic example of why the international community's best can't be counted on for anyone's protection.
Did I mention the UN response to North Korea's multi-decade push for nuclear weapons? I guess that would be difficult since it is almost non-existant.
June 19, 2005 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own theory is that the gradual but accelerating shift away from the ideals on which the UN was founded toward what Ikenberry calls the "class of '05" way of thinking is that it is a generational thing: the people who really remember WW II have died off or are long retired. When Truman said at the UN's founding
Everyone then understood that the alternative was a world where some nation or group of nations might be tempted to try to build a world wide empire and no one needed to be convinced that if that happened again it would destroy the world as they knew it.
But now these memories have faded and have been replaced with a few fading snapshots of an old war with a caption that suggest that since the Axis powers were evil doers therefore it was written that they would fail, and so they did.
To younger minds, where the reality of World War II has been consigned to such a footnote, the New American Century paradigm can look brave and new and the UN with its swords-into-plowshares ideas can start to seem as quaint and outdated as the Geneva Conventions. The new slogan is that 9/11 has "changed everything". Perhaps "class of 9/11/01" would be a better way to describe this thinking.
The post above by "noblesseoblige" best sums up the problem with it
I am really bothered by all the Democrats who seem totally at home on the We-Don't-Need-No-UN bandwagon. The Bush gang wants to "reform" the UN in the same way they want to "reform" Social Security. I think that we need to take a "mend it don't end it" line with the UN and leave all this UN-bashing to Bush and Bolton. I hope the Democrats (including Lieberman) will stand firm on the Bolton cloture a vote today.
We need to keep reminding people that Bush has made a pigs' breakfast of Iraq. We have no need to prove we are "tough" by attacking the UN. We have enough real enemies and thanks to Bush & Co we are getting more all the time.
June 20, 2005 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"<span class="Apple-style-span">The first US-Iraq war led to 15 more years of Saddam's genocide and supporting of terrorism and instability in the Middle East because the UN would not authorize destruction of Saddam's regime."</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">That's a rather interesting reading of what happened. True, the UN would not have authorized Saddam Hussein's removal under the circumstances, nor would the coalition have stayed intact if Bush (the Elder) had gone to Baghdad, but given US policy was not to removal Hussein via invasion and occupation, I hardly see how you can chalk the result up to a failure of the UN to promote US leadership. If I remember correctly, it wasn't the UN that exhorted the Shiite population to rise up and then abandoned them to mass death.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">"If the UN had done its duty in 1998-2002, there would have been no question about WMD to be argued in 2002."</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Okaaay. I think you need to draw a distinction between "is the UN as effective as we'd like" and the claim you made, which is that the UN undermines US leadership. I'm not sure how we got from "a number of countries wanted to drop the sanctions but the US blocked them" (which is tantamount to saying that the UN did enhance US leadership, the opposite of the claim you made), to the UN </span><span class="Apple-style-span"> is to blame for the rediculoous claims this administration made about the state of the Iraq WMD program. I guess I can see the logic, I just don't see how it bears on your original argument.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">"he Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo battles don't show UN strength or general utility either. The US had to act without UN approval initially, and the EU support was pathetic in the first years even though it was on their doorstep. The slaughter that went on in Srebrenica directly under the watchful eyes and typically not-interested-in-intervention arms of UN 'peacekeepers' should not exactly be considered a UN triumph."</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Did I say Kosovo? I don't think I did, because that was obviously a case of the US ditching the UN and operating through NATO. Did opposition by, for example, Russia to a Security Council resolution seriously undermine US leadership. I can't see how it did. In a world without the UN, Russia still would've been opposed.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Given US policy on Bosnia in the early 1990s was to avoid any military commitment, I hardly see how the inadequacy of the UN response "undermined" US leadership. The UN did send peacekeeprs to Croatia without adequate backing by the US. Moreover, the fact that a real UN commitment followed the shift in US/French (and NATO) policy on Bosnia in1994-1995, and that the main peacekeeping operations were carried out by NATO, hardly provides a warrant for your claim.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Afghanistan? Well, the US wanted a US operation. There were sound reasons for the policy. But the UN backed the US, and conferred legitimacy on the operation. How is this an example of the UN underming the US? Apparently, because the French didn't provide sufficient operational support after the US decided to basically go it alone. Frankly, I'm just befuddled now.</span><span class="Apple-style-span">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span">Indeed, it is one thing to talk about problems with the UN, or to point out the failures of the UN. It is <i>another thing altogether to blame the UN for failing to act in ways that contravene US policy in a discusion of whether the UN does/can enhance US leadership.</i> I suppose in the next round you're going to argue that UN inaction on Rwanda undermined US leadership, despite the fact that the US was complicit in getting the UN to do nothing....</span><span class="Apple-style-span"> </span>
June 20, 2005 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um. I think there are still some kinks to be worked out with the posting functions here at TPMCafe... :-)
June 20, 2005 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear John Ikenberry,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us concerning Truman. When you consider the embarrassing performance by Bush when he spoke to the UN prior to the invasion of Iraq it is easy to see the difference between Bush and Truman in how they view the United Nations. For Bush the UN was a roadblock to his vision of subjugating the Arab world under American and Israeli rule while for Truman the UN was a hope for a lasting world peace (how awful).
I almost think that if Bush had an ideal (I know, please bear with me) it would be America alone against the world. Each American citizen would be living in their own self sufficient castle complete with moats, cauldrons of boiling oil, and anti-aircraft guns. How noble, how romantic, how ridiculous.
For fifty or so years American presidents both republican and democrat have worked hard to promote friendships with other nations. Bush, in one fell swoop, annihilated those friendships with the result that America has become a pariah viewed by other nations in the free world as a loose cannon and a dangerous one at that. Of course this is why so many nations are busily arming themselves to the teeth, which should have been easily predicted if anyone had given it much thought.
So why is this bad? I believe the worst effect of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy is that, after seeing how we really cannot fight terrorism in Iraq, we desperately need the cooperation of other nations if we are to root out and destroy terrorism, if that is even possible. But as it stands now we are, to be blunt, viewed as thieves and murderers by much of the world. How many folks out there want to be thought of as a thief and a murderer raise your hand, and then please follow the man in the white coat where he will take you to a very nice rubber room.
I recall not too long ago we were very concerned about the abuse of human rights in China and other countries. How can we now, with a straight face, talk to anyone about human rights when we have been caught red handed torturing prisoners of war. Some would say we should protect America at any cost but methinks this is an unnecessary expense as information retrieved through torture is notoriously bad information; it is just the kind of thinking that landed us in Iraq to begin with.
June 20, 2005 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink