Interventive isolationism
It gets clearer each day that there is a tragic lack of leadership in the world, as those in power seem unable to deal with the era’s problems and incapable of coming up with new solutions. And this sense of unease has been boosted by the way in which the global system of government has been rocked. US unilateralism, the unpredictable consequences of China’s development rush, the explosive questioning of the status quo in the Middle East and the Islamic world in general, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the breaking away of Latin American countries from US influence and ever-increasing tensions over natural resources are shaping a new environment in which the past has few lessons to offer. And at precisely this moment the United States appears to be pulling the rug out from under the United Nations. For reasons that can only be guessed at, it is undermining the mechanism which it created itself and which for more than 50 years played a leading role in maintaining peace and instilling a sense of security among all the world’s peoples. The UN, in its better moments, was (and remains) the expression of humanity’s progress and the crowning achievement of civilization. And the United States, despite many disagreements over majority decisions, was the one country that made this whole system mean something. Today, after six years of the George W. Bush presidency, it may appear superfluous to say that this presidency changed America’s relationship with the world, and, in doing so, changed the world itself. But the case of the UN presents a clear picture of how Bush acts while leaving a very murky impression of what his aims are. In the runup to the Iraq war in early 2003, Bush was in no mood to seek backing from the UN, according to repeated leaks from British intelligence sources. It seems that only because of Tony Blair’s entreaties did the US seek UN approval. When this approval was withheld, the US ignored the UN, as well as the objections of several key allies, including Germany and France. Perhaps out of spite or in an effort to shape the UN (or break it), in 2005 Bush appointed John Bolton, a prominent neo-conservative ideologue, to the post of permanent representative to the UN. Bolton’s credentials included his virulent and successful efforts to keep the United States out of as many international commitments as possible. He played a leading role in the US refusal to recognize the International Criminal Court. He also tried to prevent the re-election of (later Nobel Peace Prize laureate) Mohammed el Baradei as president of the International Atomic Energy Agency. «It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrain the United States,» Bolton once declared. This arrogance appears to totally ignore the fact that every single country needs a credible mechanism for solving disputes with others, irrespective of the fact that the United States would be averse to that right now, perhaps feeling that not many other countries see the global threats the way Washington does. In the short time he has been at the UN, Bolton has not mellowed. At present, the organization is functioning on a budget due to end in June. No one knows when this situation will change. Cynics argue that the UN will get a breather once its member states pick the right successor to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. At a time of even greater global uncertainty because of Iran’s unpredictable behavior, the need for the UN is universally acknowledged. Yet, by its actions, the United States appears to undermine it. The misadventure in Iraq has shown that not even the world’s superpower can go it alone, without the backing of the international community, if it wants to succeed. If the United States continues to act as if it needs no one else it will not get the support of the rest of the world. And then the world, including the United States, will be in even worse shape than it is now.
