MULTILATERAL MANTRAS
 |
James Joyner | Friday, November 28, 2003 |
Victor Davis Hanson is perplexed by the constant charge that Bush Administration unilateralism is a major cause of terrorism and anti-Americanism, given the rather poor track record of multilateralism.
Our supposed post-9/11 unilateralism is summed up by something like this: chances lost; sympathy wasted; opportunities let slip; dialogue spurned; etc.That is, after eight careful years of Clintonian multilateralism–characterized by deference to the U.N., consultation with the EU, and various apologies to aggrieved countries from Greece to South Africa–the United States was once again (say, by 2000?), ever so slowly, beginning to be liked in the world. Indeed, we were on the collective bus, so to speak, and supported the foundations for a new global framework that would give us racial bliss at Durban, environmental salvation at Kyoto, and international justice at The Hague.
***
September 11 proved that all we had been doing the last eight years–a cruise missile here, a federal indictment there–was taking aspirin and bed rest for a metastasizing malignant tumor. Luck, not diplomacy or deterrence, prevented other killings besides the litany in Saudi Arabia, Africa, and Yemen. The February 1993 first bombing of the World Trade Center parking basement could have killed thousands and taken down the building nine years before its demise, while the Y2K plot to blow up civilians at the Los Angeles Airport was aborted through a freak inspection, not sustained U.S. vigilance.
So how good were the good old multilateral days? The ticking bomb of the Middle East blew up with the Intifada. Although the much-praised Oslo accords of 1993 were heralded as another triumph of collective wisdom, few at the time voiced concern that we were taking the stake out of defeated terrorists and a criminal head of state, and unleashing them to fly into what was a relatively prosperous West Bank that, as it inched toward autonomy, had greater rates of economic growth and freedom than most Arab states.
To say that 9/11 is the fault of the Clinton Administration is, of course, absurd. But no more so than saying that the anti-Americanism seen in the Middle East today is Bush’s fault. The fact is that the United States, by virtue of being who we are, is simply going to be the target for the enraged peoples of the world. Our culture is young, brash, secular, and successful. We’re the world’s only superpower, simultaneously the most powerful military, economic, and cultural force on the planet. That makes us the natural object of resentment.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Third Quarter Growth Revised Downwards
- Obama Cabinet’s Limited Private Experience
- Google Apologizes for Michelle Obama Monkey Picture
- No OTB Radio Tonight
- Colleen Blanchard Schuler, RIP
- That’s What I Call A Loophole…
- Obama “Keeping An Eye” On Robots
- Phil Carter Quits Administration
- Census Worker Hanging Suicide, Not Right Wing Murder
- Swine flu is more popular than Dodd
- Hellblazer linked with They resent us because of our freedom
- Insults Unpunished linked with On Canadian Healthcare, Etc.
- Cuz We Said So linked with King of the Hill
Wow. I believe psychologists have a term for this.
To say that 9/11 is the fault of the Clinton Administration is, of course, absurd
Well.. That would be absurd if he actually said it.
Maybe my sleepy eyes missed it but I did not see him say that anywhere.
What he DID say is that the Clinonian multilateralism of the past did not prevent 9/11 and other terrorists acts, so there is no reason to claim it would prevent terrorism today.
The former Clinton administration folks travel the world and say that if their policies were in place, the world would love us and there would be no terrorism.
That is laughable.
It was during the Clinton era (of multilateralism) that the terrorist kept killing our people. Some 6 or 7 years into Clinton's foreign policy experiment the terrorist starting planning 9/11.
If it failed so miserably in the past to prevent terrorism then, why would we expect it to work today?
The terrorists hated us then and they hate us now. The difference is now they fear us too.
The blame for 9/11 falls on the terrorists. (and whack job Islamists)
But the constant refrain that if we had Clintonian policy back that somehow the terrorist would magically lay down their arms is patently absurd. That last statement is not conjecture... It is self-evident as we have 3000+ plus dead prove it.
Hm. I'm always tempted to resent us until I remember that us is me. Or something like that.
America does a lot of good things in the world, and they aren't always recognised. It does get beat up on a lot because it is the top dog. It's the natural focus of hate.
But you also need to be aware that America does a lot of stuff that isn't so great too. In a lot of respects, people have a genuine grievance. Please don't forget that.
America does a lot of good things in the world, and they aren't always recognised. It does get beat up on a lot because it is the top dog. It's the natural focus of hate.
But you also need to be aware that America does a lot of stuff that isn't so great too. In a lot of respects, people have a genuine grievance. Please don't forget that.
I'm an idiot.
Comments are Closed
