04 April 2003
World Enters Uncharted Foreign Policy Waters, Official Says
(DOD's Rodman sees "New Century," debunks "unilateralism") (950)
By Jim Fisher-Thompson
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington -- What some now see as America throwing its weight around
in foreign affairs is actually an appropriate reaction to the
post-Cold War challenge to international security posed by rogue and
aggressor states like Iraq, says Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs Peter Rodman.
Rodman spoke at a March 28 forum titled: "Systems of World Order," a
day-long discussion on the shape of the world in the post-Cold War
environment, sponsored by the Johns Hopkins University School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is the principal advisor to
the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and coordination of
international security strategy for East and South Asia, Middle East,
Persian Gulf and Latin America.
The official told his audience of diplomats, academics and
journalists, "There's a lot at stake in this present war" in Iraq, "a
lot at stake for the future of American foreign policy and a lot at
stake for the future of the international order.
"We're in a new century," Rodman declared. In Iraq, America is
fighting in a coalition that includes military forces from Britain and
Australia. But unseating Saddam's regime and eliminating his weapons
of mass destruction is still being described by some as an American
attempt to become the world's only power or 'hegemon.' "Well, it's
tough being the hegemon."
In a more serious tone, Rodman said, "I don't think the issue is
American unilateralism." On the contrary, a point the U.S. Government
has emphasized over and over again is "precisely how international
norms, such as disarmament obligations laid down by the [United
Nations] Security Council...are to be enforced. What happens when 17
[U.N. disarmament] resolutions [on Iraq] are ignored and a rogue state
is acquiring weapons of mass destruction and brutalizing its own
people?"
Noting "it's no coincidence" that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are
"cheating on very important arms limitation agreements," Rodman asked,
"Who will address this new threat to the world -- the nexus of weapons
of mass destruction...terrorism, and rogue states? The world has tried
for many years to address or manage the problem of the proliferation
of these weapons. There are diplomatic means that all of us have
supported from the non-proliferation treaty to the missile technology
control regime and a variety of institutions. [But] it may be that
these traditional, comfortable means of diplomacy have gone about as
far as they can go."
On the U.N.'s multilateral approach, Rodman said, "The failure of the
Security Council to enforce 17 resolutions is a display of escapism.
It's an evasion of responsibility. It's a flight from seriousness. The
United States spent six months in the Security Council trying to
produce a consensus that would reach a point of enforcement" of
Resolution 1441 to disarm Iraq. That resolution was "a great success
and a unanimous expression of concern about what Iraq had done. In
fact it declared them in material breach. But when it came to actually
doing something about it, the Security Council was divided -- and
there we are."
By contrast, in the struggle to liberate Iraq, the United States is
not divided nor is "it isolated," Rodman said. "There are a large
number of countries that are giving political ...and other support in
a variety of ways" to the effort to disarm Saddam's regime.
Unlike the U.N., the United States, says Rodman, "has a responsibility
to be serious" when it comes to disarming Iraq. "The United States has
made a choice...and in our view, as we have often said, inaction would
be the most dangerous course, an historic mistake with profound
consequences" to world peace.
In the war itself, Rodman said, "We are making progress. We are
bringing battle to the enemy on our terms, and although we are
encountering sporadic resistance, this is not strategically
significant. What is strategically significant is that...we are
playing offense not defense" in the struggle to end the
"repressiveness" of Saddam's regime.
As for the war's aftermath and its implication for U.S. power, the
official repeated, the U.S. role in the world does involve a bold
agenda but "I don't see how we can have a decent century if we don't
meet" the challenges posed by international aggressors.
Visiting French politician Alain Madelin echoed many of Rodman's
points during a speech the former minister of economy and finance gave
at the Heritage Foundation on April 4. The conservative free-marketeer
began by declaring: "France should side with the United States to
liberate the Iraqi people from the tyrannical regime of Saddam
Hussein."
He added, "To those who warn of the dangers of the military
intervention, I want to posit the danger of no intervention." One
possible scenario he proposed is: American determination wavers in the
face of U.N. and European opposition. "American forces head back to
the United States. Inspectors continue their Iraqi tour" and search
for weapons of mass destruction. "Saddam is glowing with pride, a
bright future lies ahead for all dictatorships in the region.
Democracies are back in the dark. The Americans are gone, saying they
will never be caught" in such a situation again. "A very good time for
dictators."
Madelin assured his American audience, "I want to tell you that there
are a large number of French people...who understand and support the
[U.S.] military intervention [in Iraq.] It not only serves American
interests, it also serves the interests of the free world, and, in the
long run, the cause of peace."
(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
