OxBlog

# Posted 8:57 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

DOES OXBLOG MALIGN THE FRENCH? Matt Yglesias definitely thinks so. He argues that

The notion that the "anti-war coalition" is under an obligation to demonstrate it's "ability to defend international order and human rights without relying on American firepower" is a mighty odd test for David to have made up.

Actually, I don't think it's a bad test all. Almost all opponents of the second Gulf War -- especially Europeans -- argued that the United States should respect international law and rely on multilateral mechanisms (such as UN inspections) to resolve its conflict with Saddam Hussein.

While the inability of the United States to find any WMD has restored the credibility of the UN weapons inspectors (at least for the moment), I still believe that there was no multilateral way to address the threat presented by Saddam Hussein. Beginning from that premise, it is fair to present the current situation in the Congo as a test of the UN/European approach to international order.

Matt supports his initial point by emphasizing that

...the UN is not some entity distinct from the United States...

The case for multilateralism in Iraq was never that the US shouldn't do anything about Saddam because some mythical UN-but-not-US entity was going to handle the situation. The UN is an organization through which we multilateralists thought the United States ought to have worked.

The fact is that the United States began to work through the UN, but came to a point where its was no longer possible to reconcile its preferred course of action with that of France et al. Thus, the question isn't whether the UN can handle situations instead of the United States, but whether the United States should limit itself to the problem-solving methods insisted upon by the United Nations.

That being the case, it is fair to ask whether those problem-solving methods have any prospect of success in Central Africa. Even so, I am tempted to concede Matt's point that

French-led UN efforts...[are]doing a hell of a lot more good than the nonexistent US-led efforts there

While Matt seems to ignore that the French are there because the US supported the Security Council's decision to send them, it would be nice for some high level US officials to express concern about the situation in the Congo.

Where I can't agree with Matt is his declaration that

When the United States undermines the international institutions the world has in order to accomplish something in Iraq it makes it that much harder to resolve all the other humanitarian crises out there.

How, pray tell, did the unilateral invasion of Iraq made it harder for the UN to deal with the situation in the Congo? Neither the United States nor any of the nations of Central Africa have challenged the UN's role as peacekeeper and peacemaker in the Congo. As such, the UN's prestige seems to be fully intact. The only question is whether the French and the other anti-war nations of the Security Council are willing to send enough of their own troops to get the job done.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion