home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Time - Man of the Year
/
Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso
/
moy
/
081792
/
0817990.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-08
|
4KB
|
93 lines
THE WEEK, Page 12NATIONThe Guns of August Echo Once Again
Bosnia and Iraq test Bush's vision of a new world order
In recent years, with a curious consistency, the scheduled
indolence of August has been interrupted by the sound of gunfire
-- in Kuwait, in the failed Moscow coup, in half a dozen hot
spots. As he is wont to point out, George Bush is the man who
receives the midnight phone calls when such crises erupt
overseas and who has "the guts" to act. It is August, and there
are two dangerous disasters blazing on the horizon. Yet Bush,
the foreign policy President, is moving most cautiously to deal
with them.
Iraq's government, more defiant than ever last week, vowed
to bar U.N. inspectors from all its ministries. Asked if his
patience with Saddam Hussein is wearing thin, Bush said, "I've
been fed up with him for a long time." From the warring states
of the former Yugoslavia, images of inhuman conditions in
detention camps flashed to television screens around the world,
provoking disgust and anger.
Bush has the option to use American military power in both
places and has threatened to do so. Some of his political
friends and foes urge him to act forcefully now, especially in
Yugoslavia's civil war. He has suggested that he would consider
the use of U.S. air and naval forces to safeguard relief
shipments into Bosnia, but resists calls to do more.
As the guns of this particular August are loaded and
trained, there is an extra twist for the President. He must make
his command decisions in the midst of a re-election campaign.
Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton is free to
discuss, as he did last week, the use of military force "against
the Serbs to try to restore the basic conditions of humanity."
Yet if Bush orders the armed forces into action, he will be
accused of using them cynically to rally the nation behind him.
Discontented American voters, demanding first priority for
domestic problems, will search suspiciously for political
motives in his every foreign move.
But Bush sets more historic goals for himself than
re-election. He has declared the U.S. to be the world's only
superpower and outlined his concept of a new world order under
its aegis. The essence of that order was to be the rule of law
and collective action to preserve international security and
roll back aggressors, as in Operation Desert Storm.
Though Iraq remains high on the August agenda, Yugoslavia,
with its millions of innocent victims displayed daily in the
media, has become Issue No. 1. Rarely is a nation presented with
a clear, unmoral issue to decide. Washington faces one now: to
act or not to act to end Serbian aggression and the human agony
it is inflicting. This question is uncluttered by direct
American national interests, because the U.S. has none in
Yugoslavia. If Bush decides to risk American lives in any form
of military action there, it will be only because the U.S.
accepts a moral obligation to rescue suffering innocents and to
enforce a new world order.
A moral obligation of that kind, however, is by nature
universal and would have to be applied across the board.
Military intervention cannot be restricted to what U.N.
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali crudely referred to as
a "rich man's war." It logically implies that U.N. intervention
in Eastern Europe should be matched by similar action in other
catastrophic conflicts: in Somalia, Ethiopia, Burundi, Burma and
elsewhere. By the same token, this new world cannot be managed
unilaterally by the U.S. but must instead work from the consent
of all major powers around the globe. It would have to be
supported by their armies and their treasuries.
Obviously, no such agreement exists. The U.S. appears as
reluctant as its NATO allies to accept the case for military
involvement in Yugoslavia. It can lead the U.N. into a world
police role only if Americans first have a debate and reach a
national consensus. In fact, by providing a forum for such a
debate, the presidential campaign may be a blessing in disguise.