Left Holding the Bag?

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed on August 27, 1928 and was an international treaty “providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.” Although it ultimately failed, it was an important milestone in international law. However, it is important to look at American policy at the time in order to understand Europeans at the present. Although the treaty was signed and ratified by the United States, the senate added a revision that the treaty must not infringe upon America’s right of self defense and that America was not obliged to enforce the treaty by taking action against those who violated it. Thus, we signed off on a treaty adding that we didn’t have to enforce it and moreso, left it up to the whim’s of the administration as to whether America would act. What one administration may decide to do, the other may not. During the 20’s and 30’s, America had the very dangerous tendency to see such treaties and the principles behind them as self-implementing.

62 nations signed the treaty renoucning war which was to a certain extent, quite a success for 1928, however, as noted, there was not only no enforcement mechanism, but no will to enforce the treaty in the first place. While aggression by any country was supposed to be dealt with by the international community, in reality, nothing was done. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria is a prime example. While the intentions were right, the treaty, like international organizations such as the UN, was based on the false assumption that all countries would have an equal interest in dealing with threats, i.e. would feel equally threatened. Why should Czechoslovakia send troops to Manchuria, which at the time wasn’t feasible anyway (and probably still isn’t).

It has been said that the history of the 20th century can be summed up as the Anglo-Saxon countries saving the rest of the world from itself. The 21st century seems to be playing out in much the same way with the US left holding the bag so to say, as the (often) sole defender of international law and order. With Iraq being responsible for a long list of UNSC resolutions and its failure to comply with many of them, the world still demanded justification for regime change. With Iran blatantly defying the Non-proliferation treaty and threatening to use force (incuding terrorism) if they are punished for their bad behavior, the world again seems to be satisfied to sit back and criticize the few who demand action. With Europe almost never willing to follow through and enforce such issues, the US and its few reliable and trustworthy allies such as the UK are left to do the dirty work and to be criticized for doing so.

Europe’s very few achievements consist of taking over or participating in US led operations which they only later joined. Even civil war and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans wasn’t enough to make Europeans lift a finger. While they ultimately send a few soldiers to Bosnia, they weren’t even allowed to actively end the war and oversaw some of the worst atrocities in it such as Srebnica. After the violent demise of Yugoslavia, Europe still couldn’t be bothered with intervening, allowing monsters such as Slobodan Milosovic (no doubt enjoying a front row seat in hell) a free hand to kill. To their credit, at least the Germans stepped up and actively bombed Serbia and Kosovo to help end the violence, all spearheaded by the United States of course.

The fact remains that though the US is naturally not beyond criticism or without error and occasional sin, many of its critics fail to see the irony in their charges of unilateralism and violating so-called international law. Criticisms of America tend not to highlight our misdeeds but rather international failure to deal with problems that the US was left to try and fix.

It is therefore essential that the US and its allies move against Iran. With the UNSC having given Iran 30 days (though as usual without any potential consequences), the time is rapdily approaching. North Korea already having set a bad precedent means we must let the world know the sheriff is back in town is absolutely crucial if critical pillars of international stability such as the Non-proliferation agreement are allowed to be broken. With Europe still acting like a battered housewife with its post-WWII pacifist illusions and afraid to act, the United States is left alone to carry the burden of maintaining international order. Voting in one’s national interest is one thing, squabbling that allows bad actors to defy international law and endanger their region and the world is another.

Are the immediate consequences of a probable Iranian retaliation and international condemnation worse than dealing the NPT a death blow leading to more nuclear armed states unstable and dangerous countries?

UPDATE: Marc Schulman of American Future had this to add in a recent post:

If these reports are accurate, we have two choices. The first is to allow ourselves to be blackmailed by not taking military action as a last resort to prevent Iran from going nuclear. If we allow ourselves to be blackmailed by an Iran that is not yet a nuclear power, imagine how easy it would be for the mullahs to blackmail us after Iran has the Bomb. The second is to serve notice that, if our civilians are attacked, we will respond in kind. As distasteful as the second option is, it’s better than the first. The long-standing policy of the U.S. is that we don’t negotiate with terrorists. A corollary to this policy should be that we will not allow our national security policies to be determined by the threat of terrorist actions.