The New World Order and Mulitlateral Approach
Published May 30, 2005
What is at debate is not about unilateralism vs. multilaterialism but the nature of the future multilateral approach. The constant complaint about the present Bush administration "unilateral" approach is simply wrong or mere demagoguery. During the second Gulf War, there were over 30 nations participating. So much for unilateralism. The Bush Administration has begun the process of redefining what a future multilateral alliance will look like and that is what the real debate is all about. The Bush administration is moving away from those past vehicles such as dependence upon the UN and reviewing our alliance with Europe. In its place, the United States is establishing new alliances. Maybe a place to start is to review how our European allies view diplomacy in the modern age and why it is inadequate to our needs.
Many European leaders have learned the wrong lessons of the past sixty years. At this moment, Europe is at peace and for the first time in a millennium, there exists no prospect of a major European war. This peace came as a result of American steadfast military support of Western Europe, and now Europe is being integrated through diplomacy. Most European diplomats believe that the peace they gave can be obtained through negotiations and work anywhere. What is missing from the European mindset is the reality that outside Europe, there exists the law of the jungle. The American Secretary of State must deal with the Middle East, North Korea, and a resurgent China threat. European diplomats consider Europe their main sphere of interest. There is a different worldview between a European diplomat and an American diplomat. A century ago, it would be the European diplomat that took a worldview and the American diplomat who would consider their backyard as their priority. That has changed. Europe's ability to project military power beyond Europe proper pales in comparison to America's ability in the same arena.
Even in Europe, there is new thoughts gathering and the hope of a united Europe behind the EU is crumbling. The most recent French vote rejecting the EU constitution strikes a blow against a bureaucratic control of Europe and a blow for more local democratic approach. The goal of any American policy should be continued American involvement in Europe. While France may find it bothersome, many in Eastern Europe will find it necessary for their long-term interest. The European Union would have provided the European elites the vehicle to oppose American policy and many in Central Europe would have felt less secure as a result. There are many reason for the widespread opposition to the European Union but a defeat of the present Union Constitution is a long-term victory for American diplomacy.
The UN has failed it biggest test in the past decade as it proved irrelevant in dealing with Saddam Hussein. The UN is an anachronistic relic whose existence gives second and third tier powers the idea that they are important to world events. Let's face it; an organization that allows Cuba to part of its human rights commission is hard to take seriously.
- The New World Order and Mulitlateral Approach
- Published: May 30, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Tom Donelson
- Tom Donelson's BC Writer page
- Tom Donelson's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Yes -- "The world is changing quickly. The Middle East is undergoing a transition, whose final path is still in doubt..."
Whatever the "final path" -- it is fairly certain that the United States military is not welcome there...
argh...another case of building an Argument from a questionable premise..
the original Poster sez...
*During the second Gulf War, there were over 30 nations participating*
now..on the surface this seems like a harmless enough statement, and is "the truth" but far from "the Whole Truth"
the U.S. sent well over 130,000 troops there...any guess as to who has the second most personnel in "the coalition" on the ground?
Britain, you may say..knowing they are the country with the next highest level of troops..
wrong
Haliburton, with their mercenaries from KBR(a Haliburton subsidiary) as well as smaller "contractors" of mercenary forces have just under 100,000 people there
yes, gentle Readers..part of the "no-bid" contract with Haliburton was for their hired mercenarys
paid for with your tax dollars
now go and look up how many of the Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Interrogators are "civilian contractors"...then ask a veteran you know well about having mercenarys in the field , and in the interrogation room
when there is significant Contribution towards the Conflict such as what Bush sr. gathered for the first Gulf War...then we can talk about "multilateralism"...
merely dragging along token forces from countries that can't afford to say "no" to Uncle Sam and bolstering the ranks from hired mercenarys in the employ of your vice-presidents old company are not good examples of "multilaterilism"
but it does look nice on Fox News as long as you don't ask Questions
politically as well as philosophically..
gnosis > dogma
nuff said?
Excelsior!
First a little math lesson. 30 nations make up a coalition. Math lesson over.
I find it interesting that many critics of the second Bush policies often used the First Gulf war as their model even though the vast majority of them opposed that war as well and used similar arguments against it. Americans made up the vast majority of troops in the first gulf war. I will add that in many coalition or UN operation involving US troops such as Korean conflict or the Balkan conflict in the late 90's, it was the US that provided the majority of soldiers and I will add the vast majority of killed and wounded. It was the US military power and spending that provided the difference in the cold war.
The argument still holds and you don't need Fox to report it. The difference in the second Gulf war, the coalition included many from Central Europe, who did not participate in the original coalition and as in the first, the US provided the majority of solidiers with Britain number two. Nice try though.
wonderful "math lesson"
now..would you care to break down the military personnel and/or the financial contributions that have been made towards this "coalition"
i'll bet you a doughnut it doesn't even equal half of what the Saudi's kicked in for the first conflict..
how many Muslim Nations are in this "coalition"..you know..the folks in the Region itself..i know the Turks have some involvement..self preservation really, they desperately do NOT want to see a "Kurdistan" emerge..
and note, gentle Readers, that this Protagonist does not seek to answer or refute the Facts of my initial Comment until his last line, which is factually inaccurate..
Britain does NOT have the number two military force there...Haliburton(via KBR and subsidiaries) does..
that leaves Britain number 3...are there any other nations with more than 500 troops in theatre involved?
has any other nation contributed over, say, a billion dollars?
much less the 9 billion plus the GAO tells us is just "lost"....pallets full of cash misplaced with no receipt..
not to mention how much Haliburton has been overcharging for some of their "services"...again, see the GAO reports
so, i will "see" you "math lesson" and raise you some socio-political "calculus"
nuff said?
Excelsior1
>>that leaves Britain number 3...are there any other nations with more than 500 troops in theatre involved?<<
Yes, lots actually.
Ukraine, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and Romania have each sent between 500 and 1000 troops as part of a eastern european contingent providing a total of over 9000 troops.
There are 2000 Australian troops, Italy at one time had almost 2000 troops there as did Spain before they pulled out. To replace them Canada has just increased their force to 3800 troops, and the Netherlands which was previously not in the coalition has just joined with 1100 troops.
Of the total force in Iraq right now about 45,000 troops are from coalition members other than the US, about half of those from Britain. That's over a quarter of the total force - which isn't too bad. Way better than UN sanctioned wars like Korea where 97% of the 'multinational' force was from the US.
>>has any other nation contributed over, say, a billion dollars?<<
I can't find the figures for monetary contribution to the actual war, but I'll keep looking. Based on how much we've spent and troop contingent sizes I think that any country with at least 700 troops there is likely to have spent a billion or more. I was able to find numbers on contributions to reconstruction, which include $5 billion from Japan, $1 billion from Britain, $1.5 billion from Kuwait and $1 billion from Saudi Arabia.
Dave
thanx for the numbers Mr.Nalle
we know the US number is well over $200 billion, and unfortunately the body count and injury tallies are too well known...
now add up all of U.S and the other forces you spoke of...toss in the KBR folks, and we are still under what, half the manpower of Gulf war 1, where the Saudi's and other nations in the region paid more than 85% of total costs
not really trying to espouse my personal Value judgement here..
just setting out the Comparison for folks to look at and think about...
you know me, Mr. Nalle...i try and see the entire Tapestry, not just squint at the Threads..
Excelsior!
Once again, Mr. Nalle demonstrate why it is better to have him on your side than be on the other side. Mr. Nalle adds to the portrait that I have been painting all along and missed by others.
As he demonstrated quite clearly, there was and still is a workable coalition that is forming for the 21st century.
No need to do any more math on this score, Nalle has ended that debate. Thank you, Dave. As one would say, Enough said and that portion of the debate is over. We do indeed have a coalition.
Now it is time for those on the opposite to discuss the central theme of my piece- namely the formation of new multilateral coalitions and the refinement or in some cases, the end of old coalition or institutions.
The recent debate over the Bolton nomination is a good example. To what extent do we continue to work within a corrupt organization such as the UN in favor of developing new institutions or alliances that will be more friendly to spread of liberty? To what extent do we establish alliances with the new nations of Central Europe or India?
Do we expand the present NAFTA Trade arrangements to include all of Europe and Turkey to tie Europe to the United States?
What will be the future of our relation with France or Russia? I could go on but the point is simple- as the world chagnes, so will the coalition of the willing. So what will a future coalition of the willing look like and how do we move forward with our goals of spreading liberty, worldwide? Not an easy question but one beyond the simple dogma, Halibutron is to blame and all else doesn't count.
Just to throw another bit into this debate, a lot of people in Europe are arguing that NATO is obsolete and should be replaced by a joint EU military command. That is, of course, assuming there continues to be an EU at all.
Dave
ok Tom...let's take a look at what you are saying...
firstly..i never argued that there was not a "working coalition" as you put it, merely that it did not compare to the one formed in the first Gulf War by Bush 1.
i then went on to show just how the "math" worked out...
let's recap just the troop numbers , since Mr Nalle was unable ot fid ANY monetary contributions towards the military effort...we do see that a total of 8.5 billion has been given so far, with 5 billion of that coming from Japan, 1.5 form Kuwait and 1 billion from the Saudi's...this compared to the over 100 billion we are putting up for just reconstruction so far
Mr Nalle's numbers for allied nations military forces are 45,000 strong
US military 135,000
Haliburton "employees" approximately 100,000....best figures available set their "armed security" (read:mercenaries)..at approximately 65%
giving us a total of approximately 245,000 armed troops, will about 1 in 5 being from a "coalition" nation, which is LESS THAN the amount of mercenarys paid for by american tax dollars to be there
notice, gentle Readers...i am not "debating" anything, merely laying out the facts in perspective as given by Mr Nalle...no "judgements" nor "dogma" spewed or skewed...
Tom sez...
*To what extent do we continue to work within a corrupt organization such as the UN in favor of developing new institutions or alliances that will be more friendly to spread of liberty?*
a decent, if semanticly loaded, Question- i'm all for growing security alliances, as long as said "treaty" is beneficial to and cost effective for, the american citizen...my only concern here is the trend of this Administration to bully and bribe weaker "partners" into toeing the line, seeking "yes men" rather than expanding strategic partnerships...definately a good Discussion to be had in the State Department among various Viewpoints ..oh wait..that's right..there are no varying "views" at the moment...Powell is gone..
Tom sez..
*To what extent do we establish alliances with the new nations of Central Europe or India? *
another good Question...see above
Tom sez...
*Do we expand the present NAFTA Trade arrangements to include all of Europe and Turkey to tie Europe to the United States?*
here i have a philosohical difference..i don't think NAFTA was/is a "good thing"...but i am all for sane trade Treaties...too bad we haven't had any since WW2
Tom sez..
* how do we move forward with our goals of spreading liberty, worldwide?*
and here we have the nut of the matter when it comes to philosophical differences...can someone point out to me where in the Constitution it says our Government is required to "spread Liberty"?? now, i am all for free, representative democracies, basic human and civil Rights, Liberty and dignity.
but where do "We the People" charge our Government to "spread" anything?...and should we be launching pre-emptive Wars to do so?
neither the Time nor the Place for me to get into that one, i am merely laying that Question out there for you, gentle Readers, to think about...it's one thing to "convince" folks of your point of view...it's quite another to show up at their house shooting, and tell those left alive to do what you say...
Tom sez..
*Not an easy question but one beyond the simple dogma,*
i agree up to this comma, these are very difficult Questions of world politics and Trade as well as our own Vision for our Nation...
Tom sez..
*Halibutron is to blame and all else doesn't count.*
nice try at a dig here , an attempt to discredit my Words...sorry, look closely..did i "blame" anyone?
or did i merely point out inconvenient Facts that your own worldview doesn't want to notice...
no attacks here, i wasn't even snarky...you raise some very good points to consider...i shared my own Thoughts....
your milage may vary...
Excelsior!
Gonzo,
Enjoyed the debate.
Few points, the best trade treaty is no trade treaty, just open our economic borders to the world and we will all benefit but then the second best thing is any treat that encourges more goods to move freely across borders.
Christians spreading the truth about September 11th
It was an inside job, a covert CIA military operation
to get the people behind the war.
(San Diego, CA) A book titled, "The Resistance Manifesto" (ISBN: 0967346630) will soon be published from a world wide network of Christians exposing the September 11th inside job, government prior knowledge, and the Bush family's involvement in the attacks. Bold statements, backed by declassified documents, memos, and mainstream news reports, all of which paint a dark picture about what really happened that tragic morning.
Aside from a pretext to the war on terror and the war in Iraq, the events have since been used to instill a sense of fear in the American people, and are being used to create a Police State in America, circumventing the constitution, and using RFIDs, VeriChip, and security cameras to keep track of every person.
Included are specific strategies for resistance to tyranny and oppression. Also included is a history of The Resistance, and an outline of the lifetime commitments of its members and its global goals, spanning generations. It is difficult to conclude how many members The Resistance has, due to the fact that there is no central leadership, official member roster, and many members have maintained anonymity to non members.
This official Declaration of Resistance from the Resistance for Christ includes an in depth analysis of the Satanic influences in the ideologies, and political institutions forging the one world government. Extrapolated is the covert message and origin of the Georgia Guidestones, as well as the dangers of the VeriChip and explanations of disturbing satellite photos of Satanic symbols in Washington D.C.'s street layout.
Conner and legions of others have been speaking at Churches and Bible studies for years, bringing awareness to the disturbing Satanic influences in America and the New World Order. "The threat of terrorism is being used to enslave the world. This Orwellian Police State is the result of government sponsored terrorism and the Illuminati's work to build their New World Order. Due to editorial and political censorship our voices are often stifled, but there is an enormous underground movement against the New World Order." He says.
The Resistance Manifesto is available exclusively at www.TheResistanceManifesto.com, and in the months ahead, will be available in bookstores nationwide. The Resistance Manifesto is a shocking analysis of the Satanic influences and practices in every facet of society from the main stream media, to the private practices of the American Illuminati elite. It is a blueprint of the institutions, people, and powers at work within the New World Order.
With the release of VeriChip, The Pandora's box of the Mark of the Beast, and the world rapidly advancing towards a one world governed, cashless, privacyless world, it is time to stand together, and not let tyranny and fear force us to our knees! We must resist! We will not accept this Beast system stealing our privacy and our rights, and we must save America before the blood is sucked dry from the Satanists in the Illuminati Mafia. Power to the Resistance!
"The Pandora's box of the Mark of the Beast"?? Dude, you're not only mixing your metaphors, you're mixing up your mythologies.
On a slightly more serious note, I've never understood why fundamentalist Christians so fanatically oppose this whole one world government thing. After all, they believe that will happen right about the time Jesus Christ is ready to return and thereby whisk them all up into Heaven.
Seems to me, if they were really sincere in such beliefs, they'd be telling the one world government folks to hurry up and start tattooing the UPC symbols onto people's foreheads, or something.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/30332)
The prevailing pressure of political correctness does not allow such views to surface in mainstream Swedish media. But many people still thinks the same way. Like in France, there's a popular resistance against elitist ideas. The "non" from Paris gives some hope that Europa and America will get closer to each other again.