Anatole Kaletsky
Palmerston’s cynical dictum is often quoted by people who lament the absence of idealism in world affairs. But if there is one lesson from the global catastrophe evolving out of the Iraq crisis, it is that rational calculations of material interest are a far more benign principle for political action than an idealism which is all too often dogmatic, and can sometimes blend into the single-minded fundamentalism of which pacifists and “internationalists”, such as Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac, are as guilty as warmongers and unilateralists, such as Ariel Sharon or George W. Bush.
When we praise the idealistic principles of a Clare Short or a Joschka Fischer it is worth remembering that idealism and unquestioning belief in their own moral superiority are also the driving forces behind bin Laden — as they were behind Lenin and even Hitler.
In trying to understand what is going on in the Iraq crisis it is helpful to divide the world between countries and governments that still seem to be following some version of Palmerston’s dictum rationally and those that are veering towards some fundamentalist nirvana.
In the first group are the African countries on the UN Security Council which are likely, in the end, to vote for a US-British resolution. Only by voting with America, albeit after extracting large concessions and bribes, can the “non-aligned” countries hope to preserve the power and influence they have suddenly won in a post-Cold War UN, whose primary function is simultaneously to restrain and legitimise the global hegemony of the US.
This is surely the UN’s optimal role in the next few decades. UN involvement in the Iraq crisis is not about preserving the “international order” created after the Second World War or defending the rule of international law. The UN played no real part in preserving the post-war order because Soviet vetoes prevented the Security Council from exercising its theoretical responsibilities as a global supreme court. While there were no wars in Europe, their absence had nothing to do with the UN system. Instead it was based on nuclear deterrence and the balance of power between Nato and the Warsaw Pact.
Another rational country appears to be Russia. It is unlikely to veto the US-UK resolution but wants to encourage France and Germany to defy the US. American recognition of Russia’s unique military importance would not only help to satisfy national pride and offer the restless army a vision of a potential global role, a partnership with America would also guarantee Russia a free hand in crushing the Chechens and maintaining its influence in Central Asia, as well as accelerating its integration in the global economy. Meanwhile, a Russian dream is coming true with the rapid dissolution of Nato, as American public opinion identifies France and Germany as persistent troublemakers and even enemies, instead of allies. Thus it is very much in Russia’s interest to encourage France to use its veto against the US. This seems the most plausible explanation for Russia’s hard line in the past few days.
The other rational player in this crisis is, surprisingly, Tony Blair. Mr Blair quickly understood that September 11 could offer an opportunity to lock a dangerously fundamentalist US government into the UN system and to create a semblance of an international order (note to Clare Short — not “preserve” a UN order which never existed, but create one for the first time).
Such an “order” could not be based on trying to “hobble” the US giant. This would be not just futile but terrifyingly anarchic, since the US is the only “global policeman” with the power and the courage to impose order in places such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, where the UN’s writ never ran. Mr Blair could see that the UN’s mission should not be to “control” America, still less to defy it, but to channel and legitimise America’s essentially benign monopoly of military power. Mr Blair shared this rational vision with leaders from Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Poland and most other countries in Eastern Europe — and I believe it was absolutely right.
Mr Blair also believed that Britain’s interest was to act as a bridge between America and Europe. Mr Blair’s success last September in persuading President Bush to seek UN backing for his Iraq adventure was a triumph for the Prime Minister personally, as well as for Britain’s interests in global prosperity and peace.