Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Sept. 19, 2002 / 13 Tishrei, 5763

George Will

George Will
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Stuck to the U.N. Tar Baby | A contemporary said of Chief Justice John Marshall -- the most consequential American never to be president -- that "he hit the Constitution much as the Lord hit the chaos, at a time when everything needed creating." President Bush is struggling to do something comparably ambitious in international affairs.

One reason it is such a struggle is that new technologies of menace are in the hands of regimes that can -- as Iraq is doing with its letter proposing renewed weapons inspections -- manipulate the United Nations. The dominant thought of the "international community" -- wishful thinking -- invests the United Nations with the responsibility for coping with the menace.

The president touched that tar baby, the United Nations, in November when he improvidently proposed the return of U.N. weapons inspectors, and he was not unstuck from the tar baby by Vice President Cheney's recent insistence that inspectors could provide only "false comfort." There is a domestic constituency that favors staying stuck. It favors it for various reasons, but one has a particularly long pedigree.

Chief Justice Marshall, a great definer of American nationhood, was opposed by Jeffersonians, with their anti-nationalist vision of the nation as only a confederation produced by a compact (implicitly revocable; see 1861) among states. Today Bush's defense of American national autonomy is opposed, among Americans, mainly by members of the party that traces its lineage to Jefferson.

Many Democrats have more than a merely banal political reason -- they believe they prosper when focusing on domestic matters -- for pushing this nation deeper into the tar baby's embrace. Their desire is to avoid having to assert what many of them believe: that the use of U.S. force in preemptive self-defense requires permission from the not altogether savory collection of regimes that is misnamed the United Nations.

It is perverse, and profoundly dangerous, that the United Nations is being encouraged to place upon its own brow a garland of laurels it has woven for itself as the sole legitimizer of force in international affairs. Even NATO, an alliance of democracies, is said to be morally bound to defer. The United Nations' overweening vanity is made possible by the acquiescence of formerly formidable European nations. They now are eager to disguise decadence as a moral gesture, that of sloughing off sovereignty -- and with it, responsibilities.

The United Nations' prestige is at an apogee and its performance is at a nadir. The composition of its Security Council is anachronistic -- a historical accident. If the United Nations were being founded today, France would not be a permanent member of the Security Council and India would be. India's population is 17 times that of France and three times that of all 15 members of the European Union; India will account for one-fifth of the world's population growth this year, and by 2050 it will have a population almost as large as the world had in 1900.

No wonder France celebrates deference to the United Nations, which is a mirror with a frozen reflection of the world in 1945. That is why another shadow of a great power, Russia, with a GDP of $300 billion (smaller than the Netherlands') is a permanent member of the Security Council, and Japan, with a GDP of $2.9 trillion, is not.

In Iraq, the United Nations is meeting its Abyssinia. That is what Ethiopia was called in October 1935, when Mussolini's Italy invaded it and the United Nations' predecessor, the League of Nations, proved to be impotent as an instrument of international order.

When the president told the United Nations that Iraq's race for weapons of mass destruction is a "grave and gathering danger," he echoed the title of the first volume of Churchill's history of the Second World War, "The Gathering Storm." The president's substitution of the phrase "grave and gathering danger" for the common phrase "clear and present danger" is freighted with significance.

Some critics seem to say that in order for the president to "make the case" for proving that the danger is present, its presence must be evidenced by a "smoking gun." But that means America cannot act against Iraq until acting is much more dangerous, when Iraq has nuclear weapons.

With America's political culture increasingly colored by the legal culture, and with Democrats increasingly the party of trial lawyers, there is a growing tendency to treat foreign policy crises as episodes of "Law & Order," crises to be discussed in televisioncourtroom patois, such as "smoking gun." As Condoleezza Rice has said, let us hope the smoking gun is not a mushroom cloud.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.


George Will Archives

© 2002, Washington Post Writer's Group