How Altruistic Deference to an "International Consensus" Led to the Foreign Policy Debacle in Iraq
By Robert W. Tracinski
After months of diplomatic hand-wringing, followed by a transient, tentative threat of war, President Clinton has now accepted the UN's alleged "resolution" of the crisis in Iraq. This "diplomatic solution" is widely recognized as a complete victory for Saddam Hussein, who has once again defied America and emerged not only unscathed, but looking like a hero to his Arab neighbors. In the meantime, the U.S. has come no closer to its goal of destroying Saddam Hussein's ominous capacity to use weapons of mass destruction.
How did our foreign policy end in this dismal act of self-abnegating surrender? How did we manage to fail so completely at protecting our interests? Our actions were not the result of errors, incompetence or presidential negligence. It is not that Clinton did not realize the threat Iraq posed to us. It is not that Clinton was unaware of the fact that America's interests can be protected against an aggressor state only through military force. The real explanation is much simpler and more basic: U.S. interests are not the guiding principle of our foreign policy. Consider the precedent established in Iraq's case seven years ago in the Gulf War. That war was in America's interests " but at every step of the way our leaders felt compelled to apologize for those interests by making concessions to the demands of other nations. The U.S. did not act "unilaterally," but sought the permission of the United Nations Ñ not out of any practical necessity, but out of a perceived moral need. Our officials were afraid to declare that they were concerned with nothing but defending our own interests, as determined by nothing but our own judgment. They believed such an approach would be regarded as "selfish."
Instead, they sought to show "consideration" for the needs and the opinions of other nations. They subordinated America's interests to those needs and opinions.
We repeatedly denied that U.S. interests were the basis for the Gulf War, but justified it instead as an altruistic endeavor to aid Kuwait. And when our troops had smashed Hussein's armies, we called off the attack, leaving Hussein and his regime in power to mollify our Arab "allies." The U.S. has no moral right to pursue its own interests, in this view, but must surrender its own goals to become the compliant tool of the UN. George Bush established this principle seven years ago Ñ and President Clinton has since put it into fully consistent practice.
Consider the U.S. response to Saddam Hussein's ejection of International weapons inspectors. When Clinton finally began to threaten military action, he refused to act without first engaging in endless consultations with the United Nations. Having ceded the premise that the U.S. has no right to act without the permission of every other nation in the world, the administration set itself up for a string of betrayals by its alleged allies, who condemned America as a bully for refusing to seek a diplomatic compromise.
But, having declared our submission to the will of the UN, President Clinton felt he had no choice but to accept whatever deal U.N. Secretary-General Annan negotiated. Thus, Hussein was able to call off U.S. air strikes merely by promising, once again, to abide by UN inspection rules Ñ a promise he has spent the last seven years breaking. He even managed to secure Annan's consent for a dangerous new restriction on weapons inspectors, who must now be accompanied by what one former inspector aptly calls "diplomatic nannies" and who are required to show "respect" for Iraq's "national security, sovereignty, and dignity" Ñ vague language that gives Hussein an excuse to declare, a week or a month from now, that the U.S. is violating the accord.
This result is the total surrender of its own interests by the U.S., which can now act only with UN permission and on the UN's terms. As a result, any petty dictator can threaten us by attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction Ñ and get away with a diplomatic slap on the wrist.
Our leaders have a responsibility to act to protect America's interests abroad. Our current policy represents not merely an abdication of that responsibility, but its reversal. If we cherish our lives and our liberty, we must demand that our leaders righteously and intransigently protect our self-interest -- and refuse to kowtow to any "international consensus." Only when this becomes the guiding principle of our foreign policy can we look forward to the day when the Saddam Husseins of the world will longer dare to pose a threat to America.
Robert W. Tracinski is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, CA; http://www.aynrand.org
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
