by Herbert I. London
For many, the American engagement in Libya is confusing. Was the use of American aircraft a humanitarian mission to prevent a bloodbath? Were those planes deployed to assist the so-called rebels? Were the planes called on to send a message to Khadafy – perhaps even oust him?
There has been speculation about all of these objectives. To complicate matters, President Obama's speech about Libya was filled with clichés, and was sufficiently ambiguous so that the public could not arrive at any conclusion (We want Khadafy deposed, but that is not a policy objective).
But now as the battles continue, it is increasingly clear, based on commentary from Obama foreign pokicy [policy] advisers Samantha Powers and Ann Marie Slaughter, that the objective was different from those.. The Libyan exercise was a test case for transnational governance.. It was predicated from the start on multilateral cooperation and building consensus within the United Nations. How else can one explain the president's consultation with the Security Council rather than the House of Representatives?
This limited action -- what the president described amusingly as a "kinetic military operation" -- was based on British, French and U.S. cooperation, and a green light from the Security Council nations. Now there is nothing new about multilateralism, as can be seen in war in Afghanistan and even Iraq. What is new is the seeming willingness of this government to abandon U.S. national sovereignty, to allow the U.N. to determine how American forces would be deployed.
While one-world advocates have argued for the abandonment of nation states, they have finally found a president who agrees with their goals. President Obama once described himself as a "citizen of the world," but at the time the remark was considered rhetorical.. Little did anyone know that Obama was revealing a serious definition of his role.
For believers in this position, such as Farid Zakaria, among others, the declining economic and military strength of the United States warrants multilateral action. However, once this view is adopted as policy, it is hard to turn back. Decline delivers its own set of policy options.
That transnationalism was the objective in Libya -- above all other objectives -- can be seen in the failure to achieve any other goals. Khadafy appears ensconced in Tripoli. The rebels are still on the defensive. Lives of civilians remain at risk. And if humanitarian impulses are driving policy, why not intervene in the Sudan or the Ivory Coast where thousands have been and continue to be slaughtered?
If the U.S. is headed down the path of transnationalism, Americans ought to debate this matter. Should American treasure and blood really be sacrificed under a U.N. banner by a multinational body that invariably displays anti-American sentiment? Even if the U.S. is losing the dominant global position it once had, it is the only nation possessing the weapons and logistics to be an international balance wheel.
What seems to be driivng [sic] policy is not a loss of resources but a loss of will, an emotional fatigue. The consequence is that many former internationalists eager to retain their stance have turned to transnationalism as an alternative. In doing so, however, policy makers cede control and independent action. They cede sovereign rights as well.
It not hard to imagine how destabilized the world will be with the drawdown of U.S. global forces and political vacuums filled by the Chinese, the Russians and the Iranians. With all of the imperfections in American policy, no nation in this century and the last has been more generous in coming to the aid of others in war and peace than the United States. If the Libyan action is a foreshadowing of a new American stance, and U.S. sovereignty will clearly be hollowed out by people who do noit [not] seem to wish us well, and the world will be a much more dangerous place.
Herbert I. London
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment