Critics of George W. Bush generally fault his foreign policy on at least one of two grounds-his unilateralism (read: War on Terror and Iraq) and his supposed abdication of world leadership (read: the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol). Bush detractors often argue these paradoxical positions at the same time. Much to my general delight, Bush’s long-awaited call for elevated action against Iraq simultaneously provokes and refutes his opponents.
Essentially echoing the “for us or against us” position he espoused previously, Bush’s call at the United Nations for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq and threat of unilateral action if needed puts pressure not only on Saddam Hussein but also on our allies.
The Bush administration realizes the weapons inspections will fail because history shows that Hussein uses them as a stall tactic. Nevertheless, the formality of weapons inspections allows hesitant supporters inside and outside the United States the chance to back action against Iraq.
Bush has thereby combined the desires of multilateralists with an unabashed willingness to defend the United States’ interests. Likewise, Bush’s proclamation places the United States at the forefront of world leadership.
What multilateralists actually want is not United States leadership. Rather, they want influence and power. America’s ability to pursue its interests by itself threatens other nations’ ability to have their say in our policies.
Similarly conscious of their lack of real power, Europe has chosen to couch with moral authority positions that are really about its desire for power. Europe engages in power politics just as much as the United States. The difference is that they simply have less.
Smith Lilley is a senior political science major.