A look backwards on the policy of Unilateralism

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I think it's becoming more and more obvious that "Unilateralism" does not equal "Brave moral world leadership unafraid to go it alone if necessary". Unilateralism equals "Foreign policy team so incompetent that we can't seem to convince anyone [except the usual suspects] to join with us on a righteous war to depose a cruel despot who tortures, oppresses, and massacres his own people". Looked at in that light, unilateralism is a diplomatic failure, not something to be proud of!

We're now starting to get the result of this policy. Namely, mounting deficits and a huge budget. But don't worry, we still have a FEW soldiers [about 1 in 10] deployed at home in case a REAL terrorist [waz' that gah's name agaaaaaiin? Kim-Bill er somethin'?] decides to strike at the USA. And we demonstrated American power in the world - we had to abandon the goodwill of 9-11 to do it, but after all, it's the military hardware that counts, not the dollars, euros, and yen to back it up.

Rant/editorial aside, now that we can look backwards on Bush Unilateralism as a foreign policy doctrine, what are YOUR views?

Note: this thread is not for the merits of the Iraq War in specific, nor for the OTHER infamous foreign-policy doctrine championed by Mr. Bush, "pre-emption". There are already too many threads for those

 

[amadeus]

Calling the Iraq effort "unilateral" is both an insult to all of those nations that helped us liberate Iraq and proving to others that someone is completely ignorant of the effort taken in Iraq.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Calling the Iraq effort "unilateral" is both an insult to all of those nations that helped us liberate Iraq and proving to others that someone is completely ignorant of the effort taken in Iraq.

I would argue that the war was very unilateral, its just the size and composition of that unit that differs from what we normally would associate with the word.

With the exception of Great Britain, hardly any of the other "coalition members" have contribed much.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

To call "unilateralism" a failure because of the current situation in Iraq is silly.

Problems exist in Iraq because a certain Presidential administration made too many assumptions and was too stubborn in regards to them, not because of the way action was taken.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

We're now starting to get the result of this policy. Namely, mounting deficits and a huge budget. But don't worry, we still have a FEW soldiers [about 1 in 10] deployed at home in case a REAL terrorist [waz' that gah's name agaaaaaiin? Kim-Bill er somethin'?] decides to strike at the USA.

The foolishness or disneed of the Iraqi war is not relevant to the discussion of unilateralism.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
And we demonstrated American power in the world - we had to abandon the goodwill of 9-11 to do it, but after all, it's the military hardware that counts, not the dollars, euros, and yen to back it up.

I would agree. Remind me, how many wars has "international goodwill" won?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Calling the Iraq effort "unilateral" is both an insult to all of those nations that helped us liberate Iraq and proving to others that someone is completely ignorant of the effort taken in Iraq.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

By this "Coalition of the Willing" you mean 60 nations on a list. Now lets narrow that down a bit.

Around thirty of those nations point blank refused to have their support publicized, probably for fear of popular revolt. Even Poland didn't want its support widely tossed around by Bush.

The thirty other nations range in size from Baihran to Bulgaria. Aside from Australia/UK [usual suspects] and Turkey/Poland [bought off] we have nobody more important than Albania on that list.

Compare that to the 1991 Coalition.

Invasion coalition
In the Gulf War of 1991, at least 33 countries sent forces to the campaign against Iraq, and 16 of those provided combat ground forces, including a large number of Arab countries. Countries other than the United States pledged more than $50 billion of the $61 billion cost. Only Cuba, Yemen, Jordan and the Palestinians openly condemned a war that the UN Security Council voted to authorize.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the only fighting forces are from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Poland. Ten other countries are known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination, making a comparable alliance of about 13 countries. The United States is expected to be responsible for essentially the entire cost of the war, at least $75 billion.

This has been a unilateralist war, plain and simple.

 

[Sims2789]

Unilateralism = Imperialism + Xenophobia

 

[amadeus]

Pilate, the 2003 operation was to protect the United States. The only nation that was vital the entire time was the United States.

sims, I'd care to hear your "holier than thou" reasoning.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Pilate, the 2003 operation was to protect the United States.

From what, exactly?

 

[amadeus]

Iraqi state support for terrorists and Saddam Hussein's developing biological, chemical, and nuclear programs.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Pilate, the 2003 operation was to protect the United States. The only nation that was vital the entire time was the United States.

sims, I'd care to hear your "holier than thou" reasoning.

simple.

Imperialism: We want OIL(contracts for Haleberten)!!

Xenophobia: the "America for Americans" attitude that so many hawks support.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Iraqi state support for terrorists and Saddam Hussein's developing biological, chemical, and nuclear programs.

such as what. how many ounces of Mustard Gas have we found in Iraq? what about VX Gas? how many nuclear plants do they have?

 

[newfangle]

I never supported Bush's reasons for war. If he had simply said, "I wish to liberate the people of Iraq," I would have applauded.

That being said, what's done is done, and a dictator has been removed from power. I fail to see the problem.

 

[Drewcifer]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Iraqi state support for terrorists and Saddam Hussein's developing biological, chemical, and nuclear programs.

Can you document Iraq's support for terrorists who targeted the US and were a meaningful threat?

Back to the question at hand. Whether unilateralism is a good policy or not is dependent on the situation at hand. It is always good to mantain positive relations with other countries but not at the cost of acting foolishly. It has to be taken on a case by case basis.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Iraqi state support for terrorists and Saddam Hussein's developing biological, chemical, and nuclear programs.

Well then why not Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Libya, or hell even Russia, China and india, if you are paranoid enough

 

[Pongui]

Pre-war, I referred to this "unilateralism" in US foreign relations as the collapse of US diplomacy. This was around Kyoto time. The world really turned. One could say "unilateralism" was simply putting a brave face on the loss of multilateral support.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Iraqi state support for terrorists and Saddam Hussein's developing biological, chemical, and nuclear programs.

I guess that Saddam's clappings and moral support was too outrageous to be dealt with whitout a war. I wonder what would have happened if they actually had provided any actual support to the terrorists.

And please, not the invisible, imaterial, unreacheable WMD again. They are just like Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage...

As for the topic:

I think that unilateralism is an error of judgement. Plain and simple, it's not viable to anyone, even the USA, to try being more isolated than more integrated in the modern world.

USA can do it in the sense that it's probably the one nation able to survive such nonsense, but cannot do it in the sense that it will bring them only problems.

World today is about integration, in all levels - from political to cientific to economical. A tendency that is likely to grow with time. Does globalization ring a bell?

I fail to understand how can people in such high places fail to see
the obvious...
Regards .

 

[Drewcifer]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Pre-war, I referred to this "unilateralism" in US foreign relations as the collapse of US diplomacy. This was around Kyoto time. The world really turned. One could say "unilateralism" was simply putting a brave face on the loss of multilateral support.

I agree with your analysis of US diplomacy. I certainly don't agree with the foriegn policy of the current administration. However I think that there could be times when a country may need to follow it's own path. Multilateralism should never be an excuse to follow a policy that you feel is dangerously misguided.

Edit: For example, when voters in some EU nations reject EU treaties or the Euro they could be accused of acting a unilateral way but could also be following their own self interest and avoiding a potentially bad policy.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
To call "unilateralism" a failure because of the current situation in Iraq is silly.

I think he doesn't mean unilateralism is a failure, but that if the war was the right thing to do, how is it possible that american diplomats weren't able to convince other countries? If the war was the right thnig to do, then the american diplomacy has failed. (In my opinion that is not the case because I think that the war was not good, so american diplomats didn't have a good chance to convince).