The View from the Continent
- 05.05.2008 - 3:58 PMLast week I was in London attending a Global Leadership Forum, sponsored by the Royal United Services Institute, the Princeton Project on National Security, Newsweek International, and Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP. The attendees–from both the United States and Europe–included academics, scholars, journalists, diplomatic advisers and others who inhabit the foreign policy world. The event was well-organized, the conversations wide-ranging, and there was a genuine effort to hear from a diversity of voices (hence my invitation). But there is no question that the dominant outlook of most of those in attendance was left-leaning, which itself made the trip illuminating.
I came away from the gathering (portions of which I missed) with several broad impressions. One was that multilateralism has become virtually an end in itself. What matters to many Europeans and liberal-leaning Americans is the process rather than the results. What almost never gets discussed is what happens when one’s desire for multilateralism collides with achieving a worthy end (for example, trying to stop genocide in Darfur or prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb). The child-like faith in multilateralism as the solution to all that ails the world would be touchingly innocent if it weren’t so terribly dangerous.
There were the predictable assertions made about how the United States, under George W. Bush, was “unilateralist” and that, in the words of one former Clinton Administration official, “multilateralism was a dirty word” in the Bush Administration. This charge is simplistic and demonstrably untrue–and one could cite as evidence everything from the lead up to the Iraq war (in which the United States went to the UN not once but twice, and gained unanimous approval of Resolution 1441); the war itself (which included support from the governments of Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Norway, El Salvador and many other nations); the E3; the Quartet; the Six Party Talks; the Proliferation Security Initiative; a slew of free trade agreements; and more. In fact the Bush Administration was criticized by Democrats for being too multilateralist in their dealings with North Korea; it was said by John Kerry, among other liberals, that we should engage in bilateral talks with North Korea rather than rely on the Six Party Talks.
Another impression I had was that many (if not most) Europeans and American foreign policy experts are caught in a time warp, acting as if we are still in 2006. They simply want to wash their hands of Iraq. They hate the war, are seemingly impervious to the security and political progress we have seen in Iraq since last summer, and they want the next Administration to downplay Iraq as an issue, which they believe has “obsessed” the Bush presidency. What they don’t seem to understand is that ending U.S. involvement in the war won’t end the war. In fact, if Obama or Clinton follow up on their stated commitments, it is likely to trigger mass death and possibly genocide, revitalize al Qaeda, strengthen Iran, and further destabilize the region. The irony would be that the plans laid out by Democrats, if followed, would increase, not decrease, Iraq’s dominance of American foreign policy. An Iraq that is cracking up and caught in a death spiral is not something that even a President Obama or Clinton could ignore.
The third impression I came away with is the widespread view in Europe, as well as among some Americans, that the U.S. has suffered a huge, almost incalculable, loss of “moral authority” (its worth recalling that we heard much the same thing during the Reagan years). The evidence cited is always the same: Guantanamo Bay, rendition and secret prisons, and waterboarding. They are invoked like an incantation. The effect of this is that you would think that the United States is among the leading violators of human rights in the world.
During one of the panel sessions I said it was fine to place on one side of the moral ledger waterboarding three leading al Qaeda figures, which I consider to be a morally complicated issue–but that it’s also worth putting on the other side of the moral ledger the fact that we liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most odious and repressive regimes in modern history. Liberation was not the only impulse that drove the two wars, but it was one of them, and a noble one at that. I borrowed a line from Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic who, while a harsh critic of the execution of the Bush Administration, has written “I find it impossible to denounce a war that led to the removal of a genocidal dictator.” That is especially true now that we have the right strategy in place, that we’re seeing progress on almost every front, and that we have a decent shot at a decent outcome in Iraq. The situation is still hugely challenging and success, if we achieve it, will be long in coming. But the collapse of will that I witnessed among some leading foreign policy voices on both sides of the Atlantic, while not surprising, was still discouraging. It is no wonder that world leaders who do not share that exhaustion are the objects of condemnation.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 5th, 2008 at 4:18 PM
What our media thinks and what European opinion thinks of our Republican presidents should not cause anyone to lose a second of sleep. They all hated Reagan thoroughly. Doesn’t anyone remember how vilified he was on our college campuses and across Europe? Supposedly a dumb Hollywood actor who couldn’t figure anything out unless it was scripted for him and stage managed by Michael Deaver.
Now, he is viewed as one of the great political figures of the late 20th century because of his key role in bringing down the Soviet Union and discrediting the ideology of Marxism Leninism. The sort of people (including some of the very same people) who thought Reagan and Thatcher were going to blow up the world, don’t deserve the time of day, even if they are still invited to forums of the sort you describe.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
“That is especially true now that we have the right strategy in place, that we’re seeing progress on almost every front, and that we have a decent shot at a decent outcome in Iraq.”
???
“and there was a genuine effort to hear from a diversity of voices (hence my invitation).”
trotsky-ite is still pretty darn left wing last time i checked. were leon hadar, William lind or Justin raimondo there? you know conservatives?
May 5th, 2008 at 5:42 PM
One of my daughters has a classmate whose parents grew up behind the Iron Curtain, and who moved to this country in the 1990s. They live in Manhattan; the wife works at the UN. We had dinner with them a couple of years ago. Like most New Yorkers, they spoke of Bush in derisory terms. I pointed out that the way they spoke of Bush was exactly the same way most New Yorkers spoke of Reagan in the 1980s. They were genuinely surprised. They admired Reagan, and thought that he had helped to bring down communism in their homeland. It was quite amusing to me — they really had no idea how much Reagan had been hated and mocked by the same people who hate and mock Bush today. I don’t think it has had any lasting impact on them, but they were visibly taken aback for at least a few minutes.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:23 PM
I think I’d ask the Europeans for at least one example of having “moral authority” and accomplishing something concrete with it. They must have a model in mind, right?
“Moral authority” seems to be much like the “great achievements of Barack Obama.” A charming idea into which it would be impolite to inquire skeptically.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Europe could always show us the way. You know, with Moral Authority. Like, maybe, Darfur.
Hello.
Europe?
Hello Hello?
(I think I was hung up on)
May 5th, 2008 at 9:47 PM
I lived in Europe from ‘86-’89, and I remind people all the time about how Reagan was vilified over there, the protests over the Pershing Missiles, etc, etc. and they say - not like it is now. They have never lived there. I cannot remember a time when the US and our presidents were not vilified in Europe. Clinton was mocked, although not hated, but the US was always looked down upon.
Screw them. Where did they earn this “moral superiority”? They have done nothing to further human rights around the world, except to tsk tsk at our attempts. They cannot even field a decent division of army between the whole continent. They have lost their way and I don’t give a damn what they think about the US.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:11 PM
F’ the bloody Euros. Bob Dylan said “Your old road is Rapidly agin’. Please get out of the new one If you can’t lend your hand “.
On the other hand, how does one get paid to attend one of these conferences? I could use a free trip to the Continent, some good wine and great food.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Screw them. Where did they earn this “moral superiority”?
Well said. They’ve failed every critical test for the last 100 odd years. Time to stop letting them get away with it. The Germans wanted to take over the French and British empires and millions of people died in WW1. They tanked the economy in the mean time then killed millions more in the name of Fascism. Then the Russian empire tried and failed, oh and killed millions of it’s own in the process and exported murder to China and elsewhere. It took the Anglosphere to keep freedom alive for Urope. Not again. They’re going to have to do their own bleeding and dieing now.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:15 PM
It’s not your father’s State Department. And in this case, that’s a bad thing.
I don’t know why so many high officials in governments on both sides of the Atlantic have given up on having a spine. The “greatest generation” is in grave danger of being followed up by the “weakling generation”. The “greatest generation” and the public officials who represented them fought off the Depression, Hitler, Stalin and a worldwide communist insurgency over the space of 50 years. Surely, their modern equivalents can suck it up and do half the job they did. Or is a sustained effort to represent and promote Western ideals and values in a savage world just too much effort?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:16 PM
The next time Europeans do something moral on behalf of someone else will be the first.