At 12:32 AM 8/30/01 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>_However_, it is entirely possible that Clinton's actions (or, more
>accurately, his failure to act) in Rwanda are the lowest moral point for
>the United States in the 20th century - they are actually physically
>nauseating, and I urge anyone interested to read this month's Atlantic
>cover story or the earlier one in The New Republic that is, in fact, on the
>web.
I admittedly have not yet read either article (do you have links?), but I
would like to do something that will surprise a lot of you - defend Bill
Clinton.
The Westphalian Order that has prevailed since at least WWII (and I believe
well before that - but I don't want to get zapped on the date) has placed
the fundamnetal stability of the international system on the basis of
exclusive sovereignty of States. That is, one State cannot intervene in
another State unless attacked or provoked by an act of War.
Now, I happen to disagree strongly with the principles of the Westphalian
Order - but it was nevertheless the prevailing paradigm of the day. The
first true radical departue from the Westphalian Order was the intervention
of NATO in Kosovo. This intervention could be characterized as "the
Clinton Doctrine" - The nations of the free world have the right to
intervene in smaller nations to protect basic human rights, when the
nations of the free world decide that they are able.
What's more, however, the Clinton Doctrine also required a departue with
that other rock of international stability - the United Nations.
President Bush had established the precedent that the U.N. was the ultimate
arbiter of international intervention, by placing so much stock in getting
the U.N.'s blessing for his coalition to liberate Kuwait.
In this case, however, the U.N.'s blessing was not available - as the
Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, almost certainly
very conscious of their abuse of minorities (Chechens and Yakuts by the
former, Tibetans and Uighurs by the latter), blocked a blessing of any
intervention to protect the Kosovar Albanians.
This was inevitable, however, as the U.N. has grown to include 99% of the
world, and embraces all of them under the principle of the basic equality
of nations. If the Clinton Doctrine were to succeed, the United Nations
could not be the primary means of expression of "the nations of the free
world."
Instead, Clinton chose NATO as his vehicle for "the nations of the free
world." NATO, after all, is pretty much a democracy club. With the
possible exception of Turkey, all of the NATO members have a robust
democracy, a decent human rights record, and general capitalist sentiments.
More importantly, NATO is a consensus organization, and can only act with
the consent of each and every one of its members, from the United States to
Luxembourg. In my mind, it is an excellent choice.
Nevertheless, as successful as the NATO intervention in Kosova has been,
along with the UN-blessed operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and (hopefully)
the operation in the FYR of Macedonia - we should not neglect to note how
important and new this doctrine is. Indeed, when the Clinton Doctrine was
first articulated as Clinton led us into Kosovo - even I could not overcome
my deep-seeded distaste for Clinton and support this new policy.
Success, of course, wins a lot of arguments. This is why it was so
important for Clinton to articulate his new American foreign policy in
response to a crisis where this policy could be successful. Had the
United States gone into Rwanda, there is every possibility that it would
have ended in disaster. The US military had been training and preparing
to operate in Eastern Europe for decades. Africa, on the other hand,
presented an unfamiliar terrain, a devastatingly hostile climate, and an
utter lack of nearby allies that could provide a base of operations. More
importantly, had the US gone into Rwanda and lost - it might have
thoroughly discredited foreign intervention, and prevented the rise of the
Clinton Doctrine in the first place.
Finally, it should also be noted that the Clinton record must be judged in
context. If Clinton is to be judged for not committing the Untied States
to intervention in Rwanda, then all the rest of the world is to be damned
with him. It is not as if Britain, France, or Germany were calling for
someone to step into this crisis. Indeed, even the United Nations itself -
with an African Secretary-General at the helm no less, stood quietly by.
Most importantly though, if US Presidents are to be judged by the problems
that they failed to solve, then the US has never had a great President.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
