Monday, 03 March 2003

As ye sow, so shall ye reap: At this very moment, the Bush Administration is desperately trying to call in its markers and muster up nine votes in the Security Council, to pass a second resolution sanctioning the use of force in Iraq. The only problem is, Dubya hasn't placed any markers. This is the time where Bush's sins of isolationism come back to haunt him.

A leader with more foresight might be calling up Vladimir Putin right now, and saying "Vlad, remember that discussion we had a couple of years ago about the ABM treaty? You remember how badly I wanted to pull out of the treaty, and we talked about how that would damage your credibility with the hard-liners in Russia, and make it more difficult for you to back America in the future? Well, that was why we agreed to keep the ABM treaty alive, and negotiated that amendment allowing us to test ABM systems without deploying; we won't be ready to deploy for another ten years anyway, so that worked out well for both of us. Now I need you to return the favor, and support us on this UN resolution."

Or, he might be on the phone to Germany's Edmund Stoiber: "Edmund, remember your election campaign against Gerhard Schröder? Remember how my administration ignored Schröder's anti-American rhetoric, and let him sound like a shrill panderer while you and I looked like statesmen? (Rummy wanted to snub Schröder's defense minister at the NATO conference last fall, but I overruled him: We have an old saying in Texas about catching more flies with honey than vinegar. I think Schröder was hoping we'd overreact and distract voters' attention from the economy.) I know the German people are opposed to war, but I also know they value German-American friendship and cooperation; that's one of the reasons Germany elected you over Schröder, and one reason why I hope we'll have your vote at the UN."

Or he could be twisting Chirac's arm: "Jacques, I took a lot of heat for supporting Europe's treaties on land mines and the International Criminal Court; there are still lots of people on my side of the ocean who view those treaties with deep suspicion, and that's why Congress has been so reluctant to ratify them. I know you're concerned about war in the Middle East—who in their right mind wouldn't be?—but a lot of my people are looking at this UN thing as a test of France's commitment to multilateralism. If France and America break ranks now, then I doubt those treaties of yours will ever get ratified."

Bush is, as others have noted, from the Jacksonian school of American politics—and the Jacksonians are famously poor at diplomacy. They understand carrots and sticks, but everything else they hold in contempt: Subtlety and finesse are those things you do when your stick isn't big enough to get the job done. One can almost imagine Dubya sending Colin Powell to the UN, with instructions to "go diplomatize them varmints." American bids for Turkish and Mexican support have the raw appeal of an open checkbook; Jacksonians cry that if America must choose between being loved and being feared, then we'll be feared—without stopping to ask if worldwide fear is really in America's interest, or who the hell limited our choices to only these two options. No amount of diplomacy will make Al Qaeda love us, but there's plenty that could be done (and should be done) to keep Europe and Russia from fearing us.

Ultimately I think Bush will clear this hurdle, for the same reason that Resolution 1441 passed 15-0: Nobody likes to lose, and France will preserve its United Nations card to play another day. But Bush's isolationist tendencies have made this hurdle higher than it should be; I doubt we never had a chance of bringing France around on Iraq, but we should have been able to paint them into a corner much more easily than this.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 8:20 am. comments.