- The Washington Times - Saturday, July 20, 2002

Despite the continuing downward spiral of the stock market, Democratic presidential contenders are not putting all of their political eggs in the domestic basket. After the short-lived terror war honeymoon, they have begun to attack President Bush's foreign policy as well.
What's their principal beef? Well, that Mr. Bush has a unilateral approach to foreign policy, which means that the United States throws its weight around cavalierly and acts independently, ignoring other nations in the process. On closer inspection, though, we will find that the Democrats' approach to foreign policy is a good deal more high-handed than the Republicans'.
But "unilateral" is the perfect buzzword to describe Republican foreign policy because it connotes that the GOP, in foreign affairs, just as with domestic policy, is selfish. We not only don't care about our own poor; we have no use for foreign countries, either.
While Democrats are primarily referring to Mr. Bush's failure to work closely with other nations in the war on terrorism and the Middle East conflict, the term has a much broader meaning. President Clinton and his supporters started using it to describe the Republicans' recalcitrance toward approving various international treaties.
They were outraged when Republicans wouldn't sign on to the sovereignty-swallowing Kyoto Protocol. And remember the tantrum Mr. Clinton threw when the Republican Senate refused to rubber stamp the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would have tied our hands on nuclear testing, though we couldn't verify that other nations would comply? Mr. Bush's decision not to submit our peacekeepers to the arbitrary jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has been another sticking point.
With respect to the war on terrorism, Mr. Bush's critics say we should cooperate more with foreign governments. Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, for example, complained that Mr. Bush's "unilateral approach" to foreign policy is hurting the U.S. struggle against terrorism.
Yet with the next breath, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush committed an "enormous mistake" when he sent Afghan troops, instead of American soldiers, after al Qaeda. If Mr. Kerry is so concerned about us deferring to other peoples, shouldn't he have applauded Mr. Bush's deference to Afghan troops?
Likewise, if American arrogance is their fear, why are Mr. Kerry and others urging that Mr. Bush follow the Clinton model of micromanaging the Middle East peace process? Isn't it arrogant for the United States to impose its will on other nations, senator?
Indeed, if it is arrogance the Democrats deplore, how do you explain their sentiment, articulated by Al Gore's national security adviser, Leon Fuerth: "What you have to look at is whether the Republicans have got a model of where the world should end up and an idea about how to get there, and if they've got these things, how well are they doing in moving the country and the rest of the world in that direction."
They have the audacity to lecture Republicans about arrogance when they want to move the world in their direction? This is the same type of haughty paternalism they display in domestic affairs toward minorities, women, the poor, the elderly and other groups.
But not only is their criticism hypocritical, it is off-base. Mr. Bush has worked extensively with foreign governments in the war on terrorism in intelligence gathering and attempted coalition building. He has forged an extraordinarily cooperative arrangement with Pakistan. He has dealt with other nations in the Middle East not just Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but Saudi Arabia (some might argue too much), Jordan and others.
He's worked closely with the Russians and signed a nuclear arms deal with them. He is in constant dialogue with Mexico. We have an exceedingly positive relationship with Britain. Even Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski has praised Mr. Bush for his "multilateralism."
But if the Democrats' notion of multilateralism means that we have to follow the dictates of the European left or the admonitions of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, then forget about it.
Mr. Bush prudently reserves the right to act "unilaterally" if other countries won't cooperate on matters vitally affecting our national interest. He has repeatedly indicated that with or without international support he would take pre-emptive action, if necessary, to eliminate terrorist threats, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by terrorism-friendly states.
So if unilateralism means jealously safeguarding our national interests, then consider Mr. Bush guilty along with Ronald Reagan, who, in one of the boldest acts of unilateralism in American history, refused to be intimidated by Mikhail Gorbachev's demand that he abandon his vision for a strategic missile defense. (Many experts credit that act of "unilateralism" as the decisive event in the Cold War.)
If Democrats want to lay a glove on Mr. Bush's foreign policy approach, they're going to have to find a better buzzword. "Unilateralism" is lame.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide