Shouts from the desert

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting this morning that "The Prime Minister, John Howard, tackled a wave of anti-Americanism at the World Economic Forum in Davos."

The report follows on to say that the Europeans were being critical of unilateral aggression by the United States in recent times, as well as of Bush's inauguration speech in which he spoke of his intention to spread democracy to the darkest corners of the world. The Europeans, like many, interpreted the speech as an indication of future plans for aggressive war.

Now this does not constitute anti-Americanism - it constitutes opposition to policy of the current US administration. The United States is, thankfully, much more than its administration. This administration will cease in four years, and an alternative one, with either Dick Cheney or a Democrat at its head will commence. The administration is transitory, and while it represents the United States during its term, it does not become the United States. Certainly the United States as a nation becomes vicariously^* liable for its acts, just as Australia as a nation becomes vicariously liable for the acts of our Government. The United States is more about its people, and almost half of those - perhaps more than half, given the lack of compulsory voting there and statistical skew in non-voting citizens - are also opposed to the Bush administration and its foreign policy.

Now it would, seem, to his credit, that the Prime Minister did not describe the discussion as "anti-American". That would seem to be the interpretation of the journalist in question, and a poor one at that. Yet his comments do merit some criticism. The speeches are not yet online in their entirety, so I have reassembled them as best I can from multiple sources.

Ridiculous and irrational?

At the World Economic Forum:

Howard: Can I just say, I mean, the negative mindset of the last five minutes is ridiculous - of course America has made mistakes and of course there will be modifications of policy, but I didn't read the President's [inauguration] speech in the sort of terms that are being described.

Then later, to journalists:

Howard: I think some of the criticism of the Americans by some the Europeans is unfair and irrational and I have said so... "

Now to call the criticisms from Europe ridiculous and irrational is itself unreasonable. There is more than enough scope to interpret the speech in the way they have. Certainly if the speech were given in a historical vacuum, the interpretation would be unreasonable. But the speech was given after four years worth of past actions by the Bush administration, and those actions give the speech context. In the context of the past four years, there is more than enough to make the interpretation of portions of Europe - that Bush is intimating that there will be more unilateral aggression - both rational and beyond reasonable ridicule. Certainly others may have different interpretations - and there were aspects of the inauguration speech pointing away from the European interpretation - but that is not to make the European interpretation irrational or ridiculous.

If this were a new President who had not taken part in a previous administration, then he could have given that inauguration speech without anybody interpreting it to foreshadow unilateral military action. But this is not such a President. This is a President who planned and executed the invasion of another nation, in such clear breach of the United Nations Charter that no competent lawyer, skilled in international law, can honestly avoid calling it illegal. That is the context of the speech, and it is reasonable for people hearing it to infer that the administration will have in mind such action as a possible means of achieving foreign policy objectives in the next four years.

Howard made other statements that certainly did not do anything to make the European interpretation of Bush's speech seem less probable.

More unilateralism to come?

At the World Economic Forum:

Howard: The reality is, and it was proved in Bosnia, it was proved in Kosovo, that if you rely entirely on the international institutions, it won't work... You need a combination of the two - people say to me back home you're anti-the United Nations... I'm not anti-the United Nations - I'm in favour of the United Nations when it works.

The United Nations system worked brilliantly in East Timor, but it worked because you had a coming together. Others were there. It didn't work in the Balkans, and if it hadn't been for the actions of the United States in the Balkans, there would have been more Muslims slaughtered.

For heaven's sake, you have got to work out a modus vivendi that involves making the United Nations work when it can - but when it can't, you've got to have sometimes unilateral action, sometimes action by coalitions of the willing. Otherwise you won't have any solutions.

The SMH article also mentions a response from former Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, which they reported to be "angry" (which, given the colour it has ascribed to the Prime Minister's speech, was probably merely forceful):

Evans: You're going to have one hell of a problem, John, in 15 or 20 years' time re-establishing a collective security multilateral rule book when China wants to tear it up, and maybe is in a better position to do it. We've got to think internationally about what kind of world we want - not only right now, but for the whole of this century.

And herein lies the problem with unilateralism. It works both ways, and the United States will not be an invincible power forever. Right now they seem immune to challenge, but at its height Rome must have seemed the same way - like it would last forever. The United States, like every other dominant world power before it, will eventually fade to be replaced by another. The use of unilateralism merely sets the stage for more unilateralism by the new dominant power, whose view may well be different to our own.

However the use of unilateralism poses a greater threat, because it makes the United States seem more of a threat to those with a different view. And when there is a greater threat, those who are threatened will at least make preparations to neutralise it, even though they may not be able to neutralise it yet. The use of unilateralism will therefore hasten the fading of the United States by hastening the build-up of counter-force elsewhere.

Politicians often like to tell us that there are no easy answers, which is true. But the use of force is the easy answer when you have clearly superior force on your side. You achieve particular short term goals very quickly - in this case, removing Saddam Hussein from power. But with any easy answer, longer term goals may be made more distant, or even impossible. The use of unilateral force is no exception.

It remains to be seen whether Iraq develops into a successful model of democracy, but even if it does, the use of unilateral force has squandered American influence, and our own Government's support of it has squandered Australian influence. It has taken a historical high of trust among nations that existed in the middle of 2002, and returned us to an attitude of mistrust not seen since the end of the cold war. It has set the course of international co-operation back by a decade and a half.

These consequences are not irreparable, but to repair them requires a frank admission of past mistakes, and a deliberate and visible realignment of policy in a more productive direction. These are not things that, judging on Howard's comments, will be forthcoming.

Going forward - what we need now

The problem with saying that the United Nations processes "don't work" is that it seems that the only definition of "don't work" that is being used is "don't do what we want them to." That does not constitute "not working", and it is not a sufficient reason for bypassing those processes and undertaking unilateral action.

I agree that the United Nations processes are inadequate. The veto power in particular is an anachronism, and needs to be abolished. The General Assembly, in which all nations are represented, should be the paramount decision-making body of the United Nations, not a Security Council in which only a relative handful participate at any one time. Ideally, the UN should have far stronger powers over the use of force internationally. But the process is working as designed - there is no objective definition by which it could be said not to work, only a subjective one, and subjective views cannot be a basis for ignoring the rules set out by nations in the past, because there is always an alternative subjective view.

The greatest difficulty that arises from the use of unilateral force is twofold. Firstly, the United States is actually the biggest obstacle to reform of the United Nations, and while you could be excused for thinking the Soviet Union was always the biggest obstacle to effective UN action, the United States has always been the biggest user of the veto and has been quickest to threaten use of the veto. By supporting the United States breaking the UN rules when the UN rules are inconvenient to them, you effectively prevent the necessary reform of the United Nations that will bring about better and more adequate processes. If all nations, particularly the United States, were adhering to the UN rules as written, we would be far more likely to see reform of those rules than we would if such reform is "unnecessary" because the rules are ignored.

Secondly, an attitude of international trust is necessary to achieve this reform - nations need to be comfortable with the idea that they can entrust their security to an international organisation that has been given sufficient power to maintain that security. Unilateral force prevents that trust from arising.

Going forward, we need better adherence to the rules so that we can improve them.

What does a real friend do?

The SMH also quoted some comments from the new opposition leader, Kim Beazley, made yesterday on Sunrise:

Beazley: We were not the ally the United States needed. They desperately needed warning, they desperately needed counsel of patience and after the war they desperately needed sound advice on how the post-war administration should take place. None of that came from Australia and right now, right now, they need strong advice that whatever the outcome of this election, they must not get involved in a civil war in Iraq. They mustn't, simple as that... I think that he needs to be a friend that the Americans need, not just the friend that they want.

Now this reflects precisely my opinion of our relationship with the United States, and of Howard's conduct of it - indeed I have said the same thing myself several times, including during speeches during our recent election. Sometimes the better friend is the one who holds you back when you are about to start a brawl, not the one who jumps in with you.

^* Vicarious liability is the liability a person has for the acts of their agent, even though the person liable is in no way at fault for those acts.