For Canada and the United States, the post-Cold War world offers unique opportunities and daunting challenges. We begin from a common heritage of democratic tradi- tions and a common defence of liber- ty. There are reminders of that from the trenches of one war to the beaches of the next, places inscribed in the his- tory of valour. And now we are into another war, such as we have never before seen.

Until September 11, 2001, I believed that the next decades held two great challenges for the industrialized world under American leadership: First, international security questions, prin- cipally the role of China as it grows in economic strength and military capa- bility to an impressive and challenging new level within the next quarter cen- tury; and second, international trade (in which I include the information/ Internet revolution), which offers the greatest single avenue for growing prosperity, civilizing relationships and equalizing opportunities that the mod- ern world has seen.

As we know, our world has changed ”” perhaps forever ”” because a handful of terrorists flew planes into American landmarks on a beautiful Tuesday morning in September, two years ago, killing 3000 innocent men, women and children.

Now, the new and overriding predicate of American policy ”” for- eign, defence, security, domestic ”” is to ensure this never happens again. If the terrorists managed to mount a sec- ond such attack anywhere in the US, the consequences would be destructive for the nation and calamitous for the administration.

It is out of these new realities that the doctrine of unilateral preemp- tion ”” so condemned by many allies ”” has emerged. I believe an accurate translation of the doctrine is this: If the US has persuasive evidence that a country is either contemplating an attack on the US its allies or harboring terrorists who might strike out at the US, or its allies around the globe, then the US will ”” with Security Council approval or without ”” preemptively act to remove the offending govern- ment from office.

And why is the Bush Doctrine so offensive to so many? Some fear the precedent, others the erosion of multi- lateralism and others still a negative impact upon the United Nations. All are reasonable and appropriate concerns.

Although I am a committed multi- lateralist and a strong supporter of the United Nations, I am not offended by this doctrine. But, while this doctrine may be applicable, the US cannot alone define when it is necessary. The US could display a high degree of statesmanship by initiating a serious dialogue with permanent members of the Security Council about the princi- ples of preemption and appropriate conditions and limitations on its use.

The reality of preemptive action is new ”” but so was the terrorist strike on America.

What is also new is the suggestion that Security Council approval is ”” and has been ”” a sacrosanct pre-condition to action against a hostile state. The histori- cal record is to the contrary. In any event, I would never have agreed to subcontract Canada’s international security decisions and our national interest to 15 members of the Security Council. This would be a surrender of national sovereignty.

In fact, a coalition of nations ”” including France, Germany, Canada ”” mounted a massive air war attack against Serbia a few years ago without Security Council authorization, under President Clinton’s leadership. There was no ”œimminence” of attack on any allied nation nor did Serbia represent a threat to anyone outside her own bor- ders. Why the reversal of policy when Iraq was involved with the same nations piously insisting that Security Council approval had to be obtained before any military action could be initiated ”” and that the absence of any such approval had rendered illegal and illegitimate any military action against Saddam?

As I had occasion to note in a 1991 address at Stanford University: ”œSome Security Council members have opposed intervention in Yugoslavia, where many innocent people have been dying, on the grounds of national sovereignty. Quite frankly, such invoca- tions of the principle of national sover- eignty are as out of date and as offensive to me as the police declining to stop family violence simply because a man’s home is supposed to be his cas- tle. We must recognize that there are certain fundamental rights that all peo- ple possess ”” and that, sometimes, the international community must act to defend them.”

This is precisely what happened in Iraq and no amount of Monday morn- ing quarterbacking will change the fact that the US-led coalition acted in defence of the values contained in Security Council resolution 1441, and the previous 17 Security Council resolu- tions, all of which Saddam had flouted.

Now, I am not a proponent of naked unilateralism. Effective interna- tional leadership requires conviction, consensus and engagement. Leader- ship does not equate with unilateral- ism; nor does it imply a unipolar world. Unipolar globes are notoriously unsta- ble. Burden-sharing requires decision-sharing.

The burden of building a new sensible world order is too great to be borne by any one country, even a country as powerful and principled as the United States; it must be shared by all industrialized nations.
It is obvious that the US- and UK-led alliance is now in serious difficulty in Iraq. The quality of planning for the invasion clearly surpassed that of the occupation.

But nothing is gained from non- participant allies smirking on the sidelines, whispering ”œI told you so.” The recent Security Council resolu- tion marked a promising beginning, introducing both realism and sup- port into the equation at the council level for the first time since hostili- ties began.

America now greatly needs inter- national allies who can re-establish a basis of mutual trust and candour. Not fair-weather friends who are on side when times are easy but invisible when the great challenges come; not unquestioning supporters either, but genuine partners who can be frank when advice is required and transpar- ent and forthcoming when differences arise. This may not be a potentially popular position for any foreign leader but it is the surest way of reinforcing our shared values and our desire for a more secure world.

True allies must now ”” in spite of some legitimate misgivings ”” come to the assistance of the US-led alliance by showing flexibility and cooperation both at the UN and on the ground in Iraq. After all, the US has come fre- quently to the assistance of these very same countries in the past and as Canada’s founding prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald once said, only partly in jest: ”œI need friends with me not when they think I’m right but when they think I’m wrong.”

Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the United States, and it allies, have struggled to establish what was once called a ”œNew World Order,” based on values we cherish and lessons learned ”” some the hard way. Progress has been checkered. The situation in the former Soviet Union and in Central Europe is stabilizing, especially as many of the latter coun- tries become full partners in NATO and the European Union. The arsenal of nuclear weapons is decreasing. The prospect of a genuine partnership with Russia offers hope for peace in a region all too familiar with wars ”” hot and cold.

As we look for a more stable and secure world, the one constant is the pressing need for leadership and full engagement by the United States, not by itself but in the company of friends and allies with common concerns.

Regrettably, the UN has become less relevant and less effective in har- nessing the means for conflict resolu- tion, prompting many to predict that it may go the way of the League of Nations. NATO has had tangible suc- cess in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan but is hampered by internal divisions and, more fundamentally, by a lack of role definition.

Some problems have worsened. The threat of North Korea is more acute but may elicit more constructive involvement in global security from China and Japan.

The inner workings of government
Keep track of who’s doing what to get federal policy made. In The Functionary.
The Functionary
Our newsletter about the public service. Nominated for a Digital Publishing Award.

China is very much in the ascen- dancy economically. Its political role in global affairs remains to be defined but, in time, is certain to reflect its newly-acquired economic muscle.

Africa is slipping further into the abyss of despotism, devastation and disease. Unfortunately, but for a few impressive exceptions led by South Africa, neither the value of democracy nor the engine of economic reform has found especially fertile soil in Africa, in spite of its enormous potential.

The Middle East should be the principal beneficiary when the Iraq situation has been sta- bilized. In spite of the tempta- tion, we should not give up on the roadmap to peace. There will be setbacks and heartache but one day a degree of success shall be the reward for perseverance.Β 

But, the gravest threat of all, of course, is the universal, indiscrim- inate threat of terrorism brought home to America all too savagely with the attacks of September 11.

In a global war on terror, the more extended US resources become, the more vulnerable they are to attack, ambush and hostage-taking. History demonstrates that democracies have limited staying power for long, drawn- out, inconclusive struggles, no matter how noble the intent and the desire to do good.

Equally, while more is expected from the United States with its awesome military power, more is resented ”” even by former allies who have committed less and less to their own defence.

To be effective, power depends ultimately on the will of those who possess it to sustain it.Β 

As the sole global power, the US is becoming not only a lonely super- power but, increasingly, a frustrated and reluctant one, hesitant to assume single-handedly the burdens of a 21st century Rome.

And yet, ironically, both American leadership and engagement are required more than ever if we are to achieve a semblance of world order. The gravest risk of all would be a retreat by the US into a new strain of isolationism.

What is needed first and foremost to help retain both the leadership and the full engagement of the US is a new sense of partnership and commitment with nations holding similar values.

After all, the terrorist threat is not targeting the US exclusively. It is as indiscriminate as it is mindless and can strike anywhere, any time, from Tokyo to Toronto. To give our citizens a greater sense of security against this threat, we must adopt a higher collec- tive sense of vigilance and a more rig- orous response capability.

C anadians, Europeans and others share American commitments to democracy, human rights and the basis tenets of economic liberalization. Yet, we are very much in the shadow of massive US military power ”” some- thing we have, with some exceptions, taken for granted in terms of our own security, reducing both our capacity and our inclination for self-defence, let alone collective defence. In the first instance, we need to define more prag- matically roles and responsibilities to cope with the aftermath of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and, as well, a more concerted game plan to confront ter- rorism globally.

Fifty-eight years ago, in San Francisco, statesmen gathered from around the world, facing decisions every bit as momentous and far- reaching as those we face today. The Cold War was to upset their best-laid plans and undermine their most thoughtful decisions. But then, thanks in part to the foreign policy revolution launched by Mikhail Gorbachev, the UN became for the first time in its his- tory an imperfect but effective instru- ment of peace. The rule of law and the principles of collective security articu- lated in the UN Charter are the only basis on which a stable, peaceful and prosperous world can be built. The successful execution of the UN Security Council mandate in the Persian Gulf War by the coalition led by the first President Bush was a giant step in the right direction.

The UN is like a sheriff without a police force, unable to respond effi- ciently or effectively to global conflict, constrained by decision-making struc- tures which were designed for a differ- ent age, extending status and rights universally but with little regard to compliance with its own principles and resolutions. Thus, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was chosen to pre- side, ironically, over disarmament affairs, while Libya chairs the UN Committee on Human Rights! So much for fundamental principles.

We know from history that inter- national institutions which fail to act in the face of global crises gradually wither away. Reform is therefore essential, not in rhetorical but in substan- tive terms. To help obtain and main- tain world order the UN needs more than a low common denominator con- sensus for action. It needs a decision- making structure that works and resources to give meaning and force to its resolutions.

The US should instigate and lead San Francisco II, a major reform effort to establish new multilateral approaches that respect the basic principles of the UN Charter. It is vital for Europe, for Japan, for Canada and the world as a whole that the US remains fully engaged as the bul- wark for multilateralism. Without US engagement, there can be no truly effec- tive multilateral effort. But, without close support and unvarnished counsel from its key allies, the US will inevitably exercise its own will and choose the course of least resistance.

The simple reality of world affairs now is this: Without US leadership and the support of her allies, there would have been no semblance of peace ”” as fragile and elusive as it is ”” in the Middle East, no hope for peace in Northern Ireland, no restoration of peace in Haiti, no promise of peace in the former Yugoslavia, and no reality of peace in Kuwait.

And so it is again today, because the global community needs strong leadership to deal with an enemy as diabolical as the world has ever known. The US must reignite the power of international solidarity and provide the visionary leadership required to ensure a world order that strengthens freedom and security for people everywhere.

Β 

Adapted from an address given at the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, on October 20.

You are welcome to republish this Policy Options article online or in print periodicals, under a Creative Commons/No Derivatives licence.

Creative Commons License