one of these things is not like the other 22 April 2004 5:08 P.M.
___________________________________________________________________________
I'm getting annoyed at this whole, "oh, there's really no difference between Bush and Kerry on Iraq, since Kerry voted for the war and Bush is going to the UN now. What bullshit. For one thing, the way that the Bush administration works with the international community is fundamentally different. The whole idea of the "coalition of the willing" is a result of their view of alliances as entirely temporary and ephemeral. So, they don't have respect for, or use, the exisiting formal institutions. This is true in trade policy, where the adminsitration is pursuing a series of bi-lateral trade agreements, while letting the multilateral efforts at the WTO flounder. A problem with such ad hoc approaches to coaltion building is that what costs little to build is less costly to allow to fall apart. When it looked like supporting the U.S. would be relatively costless and allow access to the booty of Iraq reconstruction, it was possible to get different countries to sign on. But as Spain leaves, then others, there's not much there to pursuade the coaltion members to stay. At least in NATO there is the pressure to go along with policies not 100% to ones liking, so long as those making the decisions see some sort of value to NATO beyond the particular instance of cooperation. The broader point then, is that Bush going to the U.N. should be evidence that the whole Bush grand straegy is flawed. Bush and his cronies may think the world runs by Realpolitik, but they're the ones living in a fantasy world.
___________________________________________________________________________
|
Current Music: Clem Snide - Fontanelle
