John R. Bolton, the American ambassador to the U.N., urged China today to heed a U.N. resolution intended to punish North Korea for its claimed nuclear test.
U.S. Presses China to Influence North Korea
The Cowboy President and his U.N. hating unconfirmed ambassador* are famous for their distaste for international institutions. Darn if they need them sometimes, huh? I linked up to a denunciation of their neocon mentality (shared by neolibs, though faux Democrats like Joe Lieberman are clearly the latter category, surely of late) yesterday. It was one of two replies to a weasel-like review of two foreign policy books that are supportive of soft power techniques. To cite their core principles:
the more modest foreign policy that I propose, one based on traditional liberal internationalism, policed by great-power concerts in which the United States would take a leading part ...
main principles of ethical realism: prudence, humility, responsibility, study, and patriotism. On this basis, we develop a concrete plan for placing U.S. power in the world on a more limited but firmer basis, through a mixture of regional concerts and compromises with other major regional powers.
The first article (cited last time) argued the "neo-lib" gives lip service to supporting international institutions, but when the rubber hits the road, they are used for imperialistic aims. One might consider the desire to use the U.N. to support war against Iraq in 2003 (cf. the more proper moves in 1990 in response to aggression, if aggression many say was furthered by our implicit consent). I recall a discussion during the lead-up to the current mess in which a neolib sort basically said "well, if you want to call it imperialism, so be it."
Like, "no need to use that word, since, you know, some people might get the wrong idea." Yes. Many did. It is not surprising that people in a nation started on the principle that their independence was proper under the law of nations, needed support of other countries to obtain it, and relied on peaceful international relations (going to war again when freedom of the seas were threatened) to thrive would care about such things.
The sorts that honor the spirit of Madison et. al., who thought peaceful international relations was the best path to security, even when he was pressured into a war he did not really want. Ironically, Federalist New England agreed with his general views on this point, strange bedfellows reflected by those conservatives today that oppose the excesses of our current imperialism. [OTOH, this class is a bit wary about tying us to international institutions and law.]
This is where things like treaties involving varied subject matter such as detainee treatment, human rights generally, environmental matters, trade, and so forth matter. See, e.g., Lawless World by Philippe Sands. "International law sets minimum standards of behavior. Outside of bullying and force, it is all we have to provide a framework for resolving those differences. Without it, we are back to the law of the jungle."
The importance of economic matters and those that have great symbolic and emotional effect to various nations that we need to work with should be clear-cut to realists. At times, this will require us to do things we do not want to do, or things that might seem dumb on some level. But, as with all law, this does not allow us to have a sorta of (per Sands) a la carte multilateralism. Such is the real world. Such is how adults have to act, even if they have a big stick. They can do just so much with it, after all. And, as to human rights (a healthy world for our children should be included here), it is after all what we stand for, right?
One would hope so. If not, let us bring in those who will promote such a path ... consistently. If the system is broken, fine, say so. But, be part of the solution, which is not simply to break it totally. As suggested by the quote, given our power and numbers, the U.S. clearly will have a significant part in things. This is fine. We are not supposed to assume each and every nation has equal say -- never has been the case, though the system does assume some basic say, and obligations even for the "world's sole remaining superpower."
Going it alone did not work in 1776, and it will not in 2006. Not wanting it to be so, notwithstanding.
---
* I recently read about Sen. Gore's move to make the FDA commissioner an office confirmed by the Senate. This gave the office somewhat more importance, both in the food chain (so to speak), and for purposes of congressional oversight. This underlines the troubling nature of having such an important position as U.N. ambassador in place via a recess appointment.