----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Grimaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: Re: US Unilateralism
> "John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > > > I know that the US, especially under the current Administration, is > > often-criticized for having unilateralist tendencies, and disregarding the > > opinions of the international community. > > > > With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now > > let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on > > its dispute with Iraq? > > > > Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for > > sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and > > the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working > > towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain > > a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? > > > > JDG > > Well, unfortunately, no, we don't get much credit for > multilateralism. We *had to be talked into* waiting for > the UNSC to debate the merits of action in Iraq, and even > then, we show disregard for multilateralism by stating > several times over that the USA would be willing to "go > it alone" if we couldn't muster the support of the U.N. > > If we wanted to claim credit for multilateralism, we would > have had to follow the model that Bush Sr. used, namely > quietly getting broad support from all of the key countries, > then going to the public with talk of war in Iraq. I think it was much easier for Bush Sr. to get the support. At that time, folks were rather worried that Hussein would push to take over Saudi Arabia and the UAE next. He had the 5th best army in the world, on paper, at that time. Now, the primary risk from an attack by Iraq appears to be for Israel and the US. Why should anyone else take any risk for terrorism attacks that might be triggered by an attack on Iraq if the risk to their country of WMD can be minimized by simply opposing the US action? Iraq may very well not use WMD, and if they do, there should be plenty of time to support the US after it got hit. My impression was that much of the spring was spent trying to drum up support, and getting lotsa maybes and nos. > The current administration seems to either be doing a > poor job of good cop/bad cop, or they found themselves > in a position where they shot their mouth off without > doing the necessary prep work and are having to go back > and fill in the details now that they've gone so far > out on a limb. That's possible, but what were they doing when high adminstration officials were flying hither and yon during the winter and spring? > All of this negotiation, etc. should have taken place > or at least been wrapping up before the President > made it a public issue. My guess is that the only thing spurring the negotiations on is the US threat to go it alone. It was sorta, US. are you with us? World No US Then, we're going alone. World Lets talk. World is a substitute for a number of different countries, not including GB. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
