I’ve long been skeptical of the notion that governments in foreign affairs are either multilateralist (good) or unilateralist (bad). It seems to me that any government’s first priority in foreign policy should be the pursuit of national interest, broadly understood. For some, that’s a unilateralist position, almost by definition. But I’d argue that it’s more nuanced than that. The pursuit of national interest can (and should) lead to multilateral arrangements – NAFTA, GATT, NATO, the EU, etc – that benefit each party. Moreover, these multilateral arrangements work precisely because they do represent the sum of national interests, and aren’t merely talking shops based on high-minded but impractical ideals. These diplomatic contraptions, in other words, are means, not ends. Bush gets this, I think. And it’s a profound improvement on the muddled abdication of American leadership in the previous administration. But Bush adds a twist. It may be that some multilateral deals only really work when one of the critical parties to them threatens to abandon them and go it alone. Call it “unilateral multilateralism”. Thatcher’s relationship with the E.U., was rather like this. And Bush’s continued insistence that the U.S. reserves the right in the last resort to deal with Iraq by itself has, I think, been the single most important factor in forcing the U.N. to act. His unilateralism made multilateralism possible. And it also gave direction to the multilateralism, reminding the U.N. that it should be concerned with tangible results not just debates and resolutions. I doubt the U.N. is up to the task, but it is one of the ironies of the present moment that without Bush’s threat to walk, the U.N. wouldn’t even recognize the task in front of it. You know, he really is a lot smarter than his critics recognize. Which is, of course, fine by him.
SAFIRE AND THE GERMANS: Amazing anecdote by Bill Safire today about the former German Defense minister. Did he really explain U.S. foreign policy as being designed to placate Jews? It’s bad enough that German companies have helped arm Saddam in his attempt to finish what Hitler started, but that the German government should now be trafficking in this poison is truly disturbing. There will be payback. I don’t think some Europeans understand that part of post 9/11 America is a greater sense of who really helps the U.S., and who deserves American help in return. There is no longer much ambivalence about fair-weather friends, especially in the mind of someone as ferociously loyal as W. My feeling is that Tony Blair is actually a shrewder power-broker in this respect than Schroder. Blair knows that the rewards for him and his country as the hegemon’s closest ally far outweigh short-term domestic drawbacks. Schroder isn’t as smart. Man, I hope he loses.
MANDELA’S PIQUE: In an interview with the Guardian, Nelson Mandela gets someone else to play the race card: “When there were white secretary generals, you didn’t find this question of the US and Britain going out of the UN. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals, such as Boutros Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan, they do not respect the UN. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people.” I think this is probably lamer than playing the race card yourself. How “black” is BBG anyway? About as “black” as Iraq. And wasn’t Annan the Anglo-American pick? All this, sadly, is vicarious grand-standing. And completely blind to the reality in Iraq.
IDIOCY OF THE WEEK: “The president made the case against Saddam Hussein as an outlaw and a malign dictator who represents ‘a grave and gathering danger.’ But the particulars of his tyranny rather strikingly resemble those of Saudi Arabia, which is our ally in the war against terrorism.”
Let’s unpack this particular piece of characteristic inanity from Mary McGrory in the Washington Post last Saturday.
How is Saddam’s tyranny in Iraq strikingly similar in its particulars to Saudi Arabia?
Iraq is not a theocracy, as Saudi Arabia is. It’s an ostensibly secular military police state, run by a single despot. Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is an oil-rich, religiously conservative theocratic oligarchy. However noxious both regimes are, it’s indisputable that they are very different in their particulars.
Iraq has been developing weapons of mass destruction. Saudi Arabia hasn’t, isn’t and won’t.
Saddam has fought two disastrous wars against its neighbors – Iran and Kuwait. He invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia if the West hadn’t stopped him. Saudi Arabia has never invaded another country.
Iraq is in violation of umpteen U.N. resolutions. Saudi Arabia isn’t.
Iraq has gassed its own citizens and used chemical weapons in wartime. Saudi Arabia hasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. Saudi Arabia’s financing of Wahhabist Islam is deeply threatening to the region, Western interests and Western values. At some point, we’ll need regime change there as well, if we are to stop Islamo-fascism’s growth and appeal. But the very religiosity of Saudi Arabia distinguishes it from Iraq in the particulars of its tyranny. And its threat is financial and ideological, not military. We even have a military base there!
Now these are simple, obvious, readily available facts, obvious to anyone with even the slightest passing knowledge of the region and its history. Yet a leading liberal columnist is able to make such a statement and have it printed in the Washington Post. And the knee-jerk left wonders why it isn’t relevant any more. (First published in Salon.)
HOW MEAN WAS THAT? Here’s an email from someone in response to the above nugget about Mary McGrory’s recent column. It’s worth responding to:
I don’t think you should have been mean to Mary Mcgrory. You could have just written a column that obviously disagreed but you really said some awfully mean things and I do wish you would not do that.
I get a few emails on those lines. But looking back on the piece, I can only see two vaguely “mean things”, which is my comment that her column this week was characteristically inane and that her knowledge of the region, if judged by this sloppy remark, is shallow. A tough judgment? Sure. A personal attack? Nope. I make a very simple distinction in how I write. I try extremely hard not to make any references to anything outside an individual’s actual work. Even though I’m sure I’ve made a few comments in my time I now wish I hadn’t, I really try hard not to mention anyone’s private life, looks, integrity, morality, or other purely ad hominem comments. But I see no reason why you can’t be as devastating as you can with someone’s arguments or style or logic or politics or public conduct. That’s not being mean; it’s being tough. Maybe it’s my being brought up in the English debating style, where really brutal repartee isn’t taken very personally outside the debating chamber. Maybe others see the line between being tough and being mean somewhere else. But that’s how I see it myself. And it’s probably worth putting on the table, if only so you can call me on it when I slip.
MODO UNHINGED: Several of you have asked me to comment on Maureen Dowd’s latest piece of desperate, random, incoherent, and loopy free association with regard to president Bush. Alas, I can’t Fisk it because there’s no argument. But then, with Dowd, there rarely is. It’s class hatred mixed with fan
tasy, made palatable by occasionally diverting turns of phrase. And wildly popular with some.
The Dish 