 |
|
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (1)
In praise of mild hypocrisy in foreign policy
The Economist's Global Agenda has a story about negotiations over UN reform. It appears the U.S. would like to make some changes:
Read the whole thing to see the substantive points of difference. Here's the thing that bothers me: the Bush administration can make a credible case for many of the substantive changes. By throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, however, and by doing so at such a late hour in the negotiations, the U.S. winds up alienating more countries than it needs to. This is one of those examples where good diplomacy can grease the wheels to advance U.S. interests -- and instrad there's going to be trouble. Part of the problem, ironically, is that the Bush administration takes these international agreements way too seriously. Early in the administration many commentators praised the Bushies for being forthright about rejecting agreements they had no intention of honoring. There's such a thing as going too far in the rejection of hypocrisy, however. Think of small hypocrisies as the international equivalent of pork-barrel politics. Sometimes you agree to an empty platitude in return for tangible progress on some issue. The danger for any administration is that the platitude takes on a life of its own. This happens, however, less frequently than the administration thinks it does. UPDATE: David A. Schwartz has a piece in the Weekly Standard explaining why the existing reform proposal falls short of the mark. Schwartz was a member of the 2001 U.S. delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, so he's worth reading on this point. [On the other hand, the 2001 delegation did not cover itself with glory -- the U.S. lost its seat on the commission, while China, Sudan, Syria and Cuba were elected.--ed.] posted by Dan on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AMComments: There's such a thing as going too far in the rejection of hypocrisy, however. Think of small hypocrisies as the international equivalent of pork-barrel politics. Sometimes you agree to an empty platitude in return for tangible progress on some issue. I have little doubt that the Bush administration is aware of this. The logical conclusion is that they do not think that tangible progress on a signficant issue is the likely result of consenting to the non-binding resolution and filing it appropriately. If this is pork-barrel politics at the international level, where's our cut? posted by: rosignol on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]Dan, They are aware of it. What you are not aware of are the domestic political factors at work here. The Democrats believe fervently in literalism when it suits them. So do Republicans. Sometimes simultaneously over the same issue for completely opposite reasons. THAT is what the Bush administration knows it is dealing with. posted by: Tom Holsinger on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]The literalism disturbs me. Reading the section of the editorial about “responsibility to protect” - it appears that the language would obligate the US to intervene in such conflicts even when intervention is physically impossible. Currently the Iraq war makes major US intervention in Darfur impossible, for example. Another concern is whether this language will impose a legal requirement upon the US to intervene in everything deemed a crisis - and being deemed fiscally liable for damages whether it intervenes or does not. The Europeans will 'contribute' as is their wont - by filing suit. The US could end up defending suits enjoining it to act and not to act at the very same time, while other countries just sit everything out. Or contribute to the mess. On top of these concerns the US will be legally obligated to contribute 0.7% of GDP to aid - aid presumably controlled by UN beauracracies. Private contributions won't count toward the target, of course. What all this has to do with UN reform I'm not sure. Except that 'reform' in this case may mean throwing more money at the same people who gave us 'Oil for Food'? posted by: Don on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]Think of the hypocrisy with which we live in the U.S. Laws against prostitution aren't really enforced or enforceable--the oldest profession will be around as long as humans are. But the "law" establishes a societal expectation, a norm, which is about the best we can do. So too an obligation of how much to give in foreign aid is not enforceable in any way. It would be a norm, useful to put opponents of foreign aid on the defense. (Recently they scrambled to argue that remittances from immigrants, many of them illegal, should count as US generosity, ignoring the awkward fact that many conservatives would reduce immigration.) It's a long process establishing international norms. It was a long process melding tribes and localities into nations, and then trying to achieve an acceptable balance between tribalism and nationalism. (Look at Britain's devolution experiment.) Hypocrisy, like porkbarreling and logrolling, an essential part of this process. posted by: bharshaw on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]bsurvivorporn b tgp an island of free porn (Recently they scrambled to argue that remittances from immigrants, many of them illegal, should count as US generosity, ignoring the awkward fact that many conservatives would reduce immigration.)
What they object to is illegal immigration- and that objection is not confined to conservatives. posted by: rosignol on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]If the UN needs an overhaul, the man who stumbled in Iraq is probably not the man to do it. Its easy to send people to far parts of the earth for solipsistic geopolitical reasons, when you are President. Its harder to concieve a new motivating philosophy for an organization as unique and experimental as the UN, no matter who you are. Bush and his appointment lack depth in that area. Bolton will gyrate fitfully in the UN and then come home. If the UN gets fixed, someone else will do it. posted by: exclab on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]If the UN agrees to the reforms the Bush administration is pushing, do you think the Bush administration will return the favor by increasing its support for the UN? I rather doubt it. My guess is the overall purpose of Bolton and Bush is simply to weaken the UN. Remember, in foreign affairs the Bush administration is dominated by three groups: realists, neo-cons, and mainstream conservatives. All three groups agree the UN is at best useless and at worst dangerous, and so at the very least they would want to pursue a policy of non-cooperation. But perhaps I am wrong, and Bush really does have a vision of a strong, reformed UN. posted by: Les Brunswick on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]Brunswick I don't think Bush is good at vision. You're right, vision or no, the enduring theme on the right is distrust. So what we will get is mediocrity. We should not look to Bolton to formulate crucial policy on nuclear proliferation or China. This is a pity because the UN might be the place to do it as no one else in the admin seems to be very interested in either problem. posted by: exclab on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]On top of these concerns the US will be legally obligated to contribute 0.7% of GDP to aid - aid presumably controlled by UN beauracracies. Private contributions won't count toward the target, of course. Well, those black helicopters need to be paid, don't they? As for a more respectable view on aid and development, see this review of 21 rich countries: http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi Notice the country report on the US with respect to aid and immigration. "Weak on selectivity; large share of aid to less poor and undemocratic governments" "Small number of immigrants from developing countries entering the U.S. in 2003" "Bears small share of the burden of refugees during humanitarian crises" posted by: Dutch on 08.30.05 at 12:50 AM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
  |