Posted by
Reeson on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:42:23 PM
By Greg C. Reeson
The Washington Post ran an
article October 26 saying that an informal survey of staff members and foreign delegates at the United Nations revealed an "...overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body."
A couple of points here. First, why would nations that wield less power on the international stage want the United States to engage in more multilateralism? Is it because they have the best interests of the United States or the world as a whole at heart? Or could it be because they have their own self interests at heart and would prefer to see a diminished role for the United States, the de facto global leader, in every region of the globe?
Second, why wouldn't Republicans, or anyone in the United States, have a disdain for the UN? Founded with a noble purpose, the United Nations has floundered at virtually every opportunity afforded to it. The Security Council has become a joke, where nationalist self-interest prevails over what may be good for the international community. The United Nations may provide some valuable humanitarian and social services, but when it comes to global security, the world body is ineffective and dysfunctional.
The Post says "Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere." Think about this for a moment. Russia is trying to reestablish its position in the world, and it is probable that Vladimir Putin, who still calls the shots, Medvedev's election as president notwithstanding, sees a possible advantage in a more pliable Obama than a rigid, anti-Russia McCain. Does anyone really believe Russia is interested in multilateralism? France and Germany have long sought to unify Europe as a counterweight to U.S. power, and Britain is not the same ally it was under Tony Blair. Each of these countries, as is the case with all countries, is looking out for what is in their best interest, not what's in the best interest of the "global community."
"Many U.N. rank and file...see in Obama's multicultural background - a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas - a reflection of themselves. ‘We do not consider him an African American,' said Congo's U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. ‘We consider him an African.'" That statement should provide a clue into the thinking at Turtle Bay: Less American, more international.
This is not just a personal attack on George W. Bush. According to the Post, "...critics of the Bush administration...acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years...." These critics, the Post says, "...say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history."
The implication here is that the problem is not Bush. The problem is American dominance. As Americans, do we really want a diminishment of our power and influence in the world? Do we want a lesser role in global affairs? Do we want a president who is seen as more multicultural than American?
The answer seems obvious to me.