![\"security-council.jpg\"](\"..\/wp-content\/security-council.thumbnail.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
With the US tied down in the Iraqi quagmire, leftist intellectuals urge the US to abandon allegedly neocon unilateralism and return to concepts of multilateralism. Multilateralism is praised as a panacea for handling failing states, terrorism or proliferation. The op-eds are full with multilateral recipes for handling crises in all corners of the globe.<\/p>\n
Those advocates however hardly ever define what they mean by multilateralism. Does their multilateralism call for consensus among the P-5, the veto-holding powers in the SC of the UN, as a noble principle or even force the US to achieving agreement among the P-5 at all cost? What this approach leads to has been illustrated most recently by the disastrous resolution on the Iranian nuclear programme adopted by the Security Council last week. After months of negotiating and back-pedaling, the US, the UK and France have agreed to resolution 1737 (2006) which will by all means will turn out to be utterly ineffective. Russian and Chinese balking resulted in a watered-down version which only causes laughter in Teheran. For the boasted purpose of preserving unanimity, the US and its European allies have accepted a meaningless compromise capable neither of dealing with the perseverant unanimity within the ranks of the veto powers, nor \u2013 more importantly \u2013 of addressing the Iranian menace in an appropriate manner.<\/p>\n
Should multilateralism therefore mean aiming for widespread consensus outside of the framework of the SC? Well, the author is inclined to support such an alternative for the sake of effective approaches to handling threatening crises. But this is precisely not what the champions of effective multilateralism both in the EU and US congress like to adhere to, at least publicly. Yet these hypocritical advocates of international law tend to forget that only in 1999 many of them had supported the NATO air war against the FR of Yugoslavia, which \u2013 as we all know \u2013 was not authorized by the UN. So sometimes it obviously seems appropriate also for these multilateralists to abandon SC consensus for the sake of achieving humanitarian or interest-based outcomes in conflict cases. While I consider it right to sack legality for the sake of legitimacy in some cases, the multilateralists try hard to conceal their collusion with this approach back in 1999.<\/p>\n
But even if we were to subscribe to multilateralism and inclined to urge the US to return to multilateralist approaches to international crises we have to answer one crucial question: Are there any reliable European partners for multilateral bargains with the US except for the UK? France, Germany and Russia have all rejected US calls for support and help in dealing with the Iraqi crisis in 2002\/2003. Even if we were to concede that the military intervention by the US and the UK in Iraq in 2003 was wrong, even if we were to agree that the planning for post-war rebuilding and re-organising Iraq have been utterly simplistic, there is one thing western powers have to agree too: it is in our vital interests to stabilise Iraq. We must not accept the dismemberment of Iraq which will end in a broad military conflict in the entire region. Europe and the US need an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.<\/p>\n
Most EU countries however prefer to sit on the fences and bark at the US; self-opinionated as they are, countries like Germany and France prefer to stick to the ‘we told you so\u2019-position while irresponsibly denying any substantial help for the military stabilisation and the civil reconstruction of Iraq.<\/p>\n
Multilateralism is indeed a valuable concept though not as the legalist construct of P-5 consensus. Relying on multilateralist approaches to international crises however requires leadership \u2013 which the US is to provide \u2013 and reliable partners. Most European countries do not live up to this at the moment. At the end of the day, the European mantra seems to be: We expect the US to lead and take the burden, and we will tell her when and where… and, by the way, don’t ask the EU to contribute to the effort militarily, she enjoys her peace dividend…<\/p>\n
\n
A commentary based on these arguments was published in German language exclusively by the Austrian Daily ‘Der Standard’ on December 30th, 2006:<\/p>\n
\n
Joschka Fischer mahnt also die R\u00fcckkehr der USA zum Multilateralismus an. Leider erkl\u00e4rt er nie, was er darunter versteht. Bedeutet Multilateralismus die Einbindung der hegemonialen Macht in den Konsens der kollektiven Ordnung der Vereinten Nationen? Meint Joschka Fischer denn, die USA sollten sich durch die Vetom\u00e4chte des Sicherheitsrates \u2013 allen voran Ru\u00dfland und China \u2013 einhegen lassen? Die j\u00fcngsten Fehlgeburten dieses Rates sind die zahnlosen Sanktionen gegen das islamistische Regime des Iran. Um den Eindruck des kollektiven, d.h. multilateralen Vorgehens, die auch von Fischer beschworene Geschlossenheit der internationalen Gemeinschaft zu bewahren, wurden substantielle Sanktionen unterlassen; der Multilateralismus hat ein d\u00fcrres Gerippe an Verhaltensregeln ausgespuckt, das die Nuklearoption des reaktion\u00e4ren iranischen Regimes nicht verhindern wird.<\/p>\n
Erstaunlich aber, sollte Fischer wirklich diesen Multilateralismus der VN einmahnen. Erinnerlich noch ist, als Deutschland unter Schr\u00f6der und Fischer die \u2013 an sich richtige \u2013 NATO-Intervention im Kosovo unterst\u00fctzten, die doch den v\u00f6lkerrechtlichen Multilateralismus des zwingend gebotenen Sicherheitsratsmandates verletzte. Sollten also nicht alle Vetom\u00e4chte des Sicherheitsrates der VN zustimmen m\u00fcssen, damit das heilige Prinzip des Multilateralismus gewahrt bleibt? Pl\u00e4diert Fischer damit f\u00fcr den Multilateralismus weniger Staaten, der sich im V\u00f6lkerrechtsgewand kleidet, wenn er den eigenen Interessen dient? Muss sich eine Staatenkoalition dem V\u00f6lkerrecht nicht beugen, sobald sie glaubt, moralisch rechtens oder im zwingenden eigenen Interesse zu handeln? Wieder h\u00e4tte Fischer damit recht, allein die Botschaft w\u00e4re ihm wohl unangenehm.<\/p>\n
Und schlie\u00dflich: ein solcherart verstandener Multilateralismus, der die Zusammenarbeit f\u00fchrender M\u00e4chte zur L\u00f6sung einer Gefahr auch jenseits des Mandats des Sicherheitsrates einschlie\u00dft, ist stumpf, wenn die Bereitschaft der gro\u00dfen Staaten ausbleibt, unter der F\u00fchrung der USA (die Fischer auch immer wieder anerkennt und geradezu einfordert) zusammenzuarbeiten. Multilateralismus braucht Partner. Die europ\u00e4ischen Partner haben sich aber gerade in der Irakkrise 2002\/03 verweigert. Sie verweigern sich auch jetzt noch: Was immer man \u00fcber die Richtigkeit der Entscheidung zur milit\u00e4rischen Intervention 2003 denken mag; was immer an der nicht ausreichenden Planung der Nachkriegsordnung auszusetzen ist; eines ist sicher: die Niederlage der USA im Irak und der Abzug der US-Streitkr\u00e4fte aus dem Zweistromland w\u00fcrden die Region in eine verheerende Krise st\u00fcrzen, die unmittelbar vitalste westliche, d.h. auch europ\u00e4ische Interessen ersch\u00fctterte. Trotzdem bleiben die meisten europ\u00e4ischen Staaten auf der Zuschauertrib\u00fcne und sonnen sich lieber in historischer Rechthaberei, als konkret zur L\u00f6sung der irakischen Zwangslage beizutragen. Multilateralismus ist ein taugliches Konzept \u2013 aber er braucht Partner. F\u00fchrungsleistung einzumahnen, ohne zur Gefolgschaft bereit zu sein, ist nicht genug.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
With the US tied down in the Iraqi quagmire, leftist intellectuals urge the US to abandon allegedly neocon unilateralism and return to concepts of multilateralism. Multilateralism is praised as a panacea for handling failing states, terrorism or proliferation. The op-eds are full with multilateral recipes for handling crises in all corners of the globe. Those … Continue reading The Fairy Tales of Multilateralism<\/span>