I believe I have found some delightfully ironic proof of Scylla’s Law of Unintended Consequences (LOUC) in action, and I’d love others to weigh in.
Declarative: While neo-conservative policy makers have made public statements that the United Nations has become irrelevant in the exercise of international diplomacy, the expressly unilateralist foreign policy of the Bush administration has actually enhanced the status and reinforced the legitimacy of the United Nations as the closest thing available to an impartial guarantor of peace and forum for conflict resolution.
Evidence:
Previous peacekeeping efforts coordinated by or under the umbrella of the U.N. have, by contrast to the current U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, been demonstrated to be significantly more effective with respect to restoration of security, services, and prevention of continued armed conflict. (NOTE: not saying U.N. missions are perfect, just qualitatively more successful to what’s going on in Iraq now)
International adversaries like Pakistan and India, the Arab League and Turkey, France and Germany and Russia, are actually setting aside their differences to unite in their condemnation of the U.S. occupation. Such common ground is an essential component of future conflict resolution between these competing nations.
Through it’s aggressive attempts to coerce the Security Council prior to the invasion of Iraq, coupled with recent attempts to “reconcile” (a.ka. “grovel”) with the UNSC in order to divert or dilute responsibility for the catastrophic turn of events in the reconstruction of Iraq, the Bush administration’s ineptitude has taught the world a lesson that far from being irrelevant, the sanction of the United Nations is a requirement for successful trans-global foreign policy missions.
Feel free to support or dispute any of the above, but please be mindful to use factual examples - no U.N. global domination conspiracy theorists, please. This OP is not intended to view the U.N. through rose-coloured glasses, merely to come to a definitive consensus on how U.S. foreign policy has impacted the global diplomatic environment.
Addendum: Also, before any of you neo-cons object to the use of “Bush administration” and “ineptitude” in 3), take a deep breath. This OP is NOT related to justified/unjustified, good/bad, about Iraq, etc., etc. This is about the exercise of international diplomacy.
Ah, the principle of counter-induction raises its golden brow yet again.
If I may depart from strict fact and engage in speculation for a moment, I strongly suspect that if Rumsfeld had been less interested in “proving” his theories that the US can exert its power with only a minor military presence, and more interested in giving commanders the troops they said they needed, the occupation might have gone over much better. We would have been able to guard the utilities, and perhaps even more importantly, the records, of Iraq much more effectively. Possibly the Iraqi people wouldn’t be so poorly off, and possibly we would have actually learned useful information about any possible WMDs.
Score one for Powell! It’s a shame that this whole mess has tarnished him so much that he’ll probably never be able to run for major office, even if he wanted too.
There are several layers of irony in the whole situation. George Bush the candidate spoke disparagingly of nation-building yet he has staked his presidency on a nation-building effort in Iraq. Yet in a sense President Bush has almost proved Candidate Bush right; the nation-building effort has been so inept that it suggests that the US shouldn’t be in the business of nation-building on its own. That can only mean working closely with the UN and other countries; yet the administration has almost gone out of its way to alienate the UN and key countries like France and Germany.
The bottom line is that the Bush administration has come out of this looking like a bunch of self-deluding incompetents. In contrast to them the UN can't help looking better.
I would also submit that this turn of events bodes well for the future success of the U.N. as a trans-national body. When I first started studying international relations in the early 90’s, the biggest gripe of the Third World and other so-called “non-aligned” countries was that the U.N. was basically a U.S. puppet because we supplied the bulk of the funding and all of the muscle. Now, in contrast, the U.N. has become the voice of reason, and we’re the loose cannon.
If we’d been more reasonable with the UN previously AND the invasion still took place (which I realize is a bit of a stretch, but bear with me), would the UN have had as much of a problem with the occupation of Iraq as we have?
One more dreadful irony to add: if the UN is successful, and saves GeeDubya’s bacon, this will be forgotten. TheBushiviks will declare victory, hand out medals all around, and get the hell out. The Rove Machine will pull out all the stops for patrioticly maudlin Welcome Home Heroes! celebrations for the returning troops, returning solely due to the diplomatic finesse of the Bush Admin. Hurrah!
“Well, once them Yurpeens saw us kick butt and take names, they had no choice but get on board! That was the plan all along, but it was secret.”
If the UN saves GeeDubya’s ass, they virtually guarantee his election.
Expressly unilateralist? Some 20 countries already have ~20,000 troops in Iraq. Are we doomed to ‘unilateralism’, until France and Germany sign on?
Arguable on a case-by-case basis, but I certainly disagree that the UN is better at ‘nation building’ than the US as a blanket statement.
US ‘occupation’ is expressly sanctioned by the almighty UN, through UNSC Resolution 1483. Certainly those nations expressing ‘condemnation’ should retract their unilateralist statements.
Indeed, 1483 expressly welcomes nations not currently involved in Iraq to, “…contribute to the stability and security in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment, and other resources under the Authority.” ('The Authority is defined as the United States and Great Britain.)
Seeing as the UN has already been targeted in Iraq, I don’t really see how they will be any more successfull if the occupation is transferred to them. And I certainly don’t think that the situation in Iraq will get any better if soldiers from the freedom-loving nations in the Arab League or Pakistan come to Iraq.
But I prefer Elucidator’s take on the situation.
elucidator has it nailed. And the Old Europeans know it; that would be why they’re holding out for a serious and unquestionable act of self-abasement on Bush’s part, including ceding of overall authority, before going in to clean up. At least I think so - or perhaps they understandably don’t trust him to use overall authority wisely.
“One more dreadful irony to add: if the UN is successful, and saves GeeDubya’s bacon, this will be forgotten”
I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Success is relative especially at this late stage. The UN will improve things but even with them Iraq will unfortunately be quite messy and expensive for a while in all likelihood. And I suspect that the memory of the Bushies floundering about for months like headless chickens won’t be erased that quickly especially since the Democratic candidates will keep hammering on about it the whole election season.
“Expressly unilateralist? Some 20 countries already have ~20,000 troops in Iraq.”
There is substantive multilaterism and there is silly “coalition of the willing” multilateralism. The 20K troops are a small fraction of the total which is in itself probably insufficient. Some countries are sending token levels of troops to keep the US happy; no one is sending the large numbers to really help.
“And I certainly don’t think that the situation in Iraq will get any better if soldiers from the freedom-loving nations in the Arab League or Pakistan come to Iraq.”
Their love of freedom or lack thereof has nothing to do with it.
First of all sheer numbers will help especially in protecting infrastructure.
Secondly it’s not unreasonable to speculate that troops who speak the language and understand the culture are going to be better able to deal with the Iraqis but even if that’s not true the first point applies.
If it all falls to shit and shrapnel after the UN takes over and the majority of US troops are out, whos going to care? GeeDubya will just blame it on the French: “See what happens! I do what them Libruhls tell me, I go get the UN, and everything falls apart!”
UN handles things swimmingly: much better for Iraqis, better for world, pefectly fine for GeeDubya, troops come home, photo op with Flight Suit.
Situation goes straight to hell, too bad for Iraqis, not so hot for world, perfectly fine for GeeDubya, troops come home, etc…
The point is that there various of shades between disaster and success. I think the opportunity for a great success has slipped away by now; what is at stake is failure versus semi-success. I don’t think the latter will win Bush the election; at best it will take away an issue from the Dems. I think politically Bush is playing defense on Iraq from now on.
And don't forget that it's far from clear that Bush will manage to make a deal at the UN and get signfiicant amounts of help.
20 countires !! haha… Come on. Only the UK has anything significant there. I doubt more than 5-8 countries sent anything at all. If you call that a real coalition I will call Bush a real genius. How many countries participated actively in the Gulf War I ? Compare that too the current fiasco.
Case by Case basis what has the US done in nation building ? Afghanistan isnt getting any better and Iraq certainly spoils any positive record. Anyway the UN has way more experience too even if their record isnt that good either.
In the end you need some Arab soldiers on the ground and in good number. They will help much more than an extra 50,000 GI Joes. The problem besides the US incompetence is that Iraqis dont like americans... so the odds were stacked against even a reasonable post war plan (which didnt exist). It doesnt take a genius to figure the UN was necessary due to its being less controversial for the locals.
I think what the OP wanted to say is that INDEPENDENT of UN former record... the US fiasco in Iraq is making them look good in COMPARISON. The UN is far from perfect... in fact their peacekeeping missions take too long and dont always get too much done. The UN is slow and burueacratic too. Many of the US criticisms of the UN are very valid in fact. Now compared to the US currently... ironically who cant look good ?
Hmmm. That’s a toughie. How are you going to demonstrate this? I’m not aware of the UN conquering any foreign countries and occupying them.
That is a different endeavor than a peacekeeping mission. I don’t see how you compare apples and oranges, but maybe you can. I’ll be willing to listen.
Secondly, I doubt you can actually make the argument that the UN does better than we’re doing. I don’t think you can compare the blue helmets’ record of peacekeeping favorably to the US occupation, particularly if you’re going to. But again, I’d like to see you try. I’m open.
I suppose you can argue that this strengthens the UN, but it looks to me more like an alliance of conveniance for grumbling purposes. So far they haven’t really actually done anything, have they?
Wishful thinking. I would categorize Iraq’s reconstrution as proceeding in mediocre fashion. “Catastrophic turn of events” sounds like pure hyperbole. It’s still early in the game
Define ‘significant’. Poland has ~2000 troops there. Regardless, how many troops will other countries have to contribute before the left stops seeing this as a ‘unilateral’ action? What is the exact magic number, both of countries, and of troops that they commit?
Quite so. Things are not always what they seem. Koffi Annan has been bitten in the butt by a rattlesnake, and GeeDubya is trying to save his life. Germany and France, seeing how swimmingly things are going in this “nation building” adventure, are beseeching and imploring an opportunity to pour thier blood and treasure into the Godforsaken Desert. The Bushiviks, moved as always by the native American spirit of generosity, have decided to consent to these entreaties.
Your the guy playing around with numbers. When you say 20 countries your the one trying to make it look multilateral. Fiddling with figures and including 20 countries when a quarter have sent less than a 100 troops if at all... consensus by a few doesnt make it a big consensus.
US - 200 k+
UK - 20 k troops
Poland - 2000 troops
Aussies - 100’s special troops
Norway ? 300 ?
Others ?
I wont even bother searching the internet for the exact numbers… but most sent token forces for show only.
Even if the UN does collaborate troops or take over Iraq naturally the US presence will be way bigger. In contrast thou you will see bigger number of troops from many different countries in what would be a true “coalition”. So there is no “magic” number of troops… only a real number of allies.
Perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong, but in my mind the whole thing became unilateral as soon as G.W. came out and said that the U.S. is gonna go in and kick butt no matter what anyone else thinks, says, or does. At that point, no matter how many people hop on the bandwagon, a unilateral decision was made.
The unilateral action most of us are complaining about is long over, i.e. the war. If you’d like to argue that there was a large coalition that paid much more than lip service to the war, I’m going to ask for a cite.
As for the U.N., I’d like to see them involved, but not under the command of the U.S., as the Iraqis need some help badly right now, and those folks happen to be more important to me than a democrat in the White House. If it happens to increase GWB’s chances for reelection, then so be it, but if he pulls a stunt like this again after they help him, I’ll happily step aside if the rest of world multilaterally decides to take over Washington to put a stop to the thug in the White House.
DMC - I am split by the danger of Iraq falling into total chaos vs helping out Bush. If they do help out Bush I don’t doubt he might pull off another “unilateral” stunt… not an invasion since that didnt work out the first time… but certainly some military stunt (bombing). So not sure its about helping Iraq no matter what.