Here’s proof that the famous hospitality of the American Midwest is not dead:
Just as news breaks that France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy’s domestic approval rating continues to decline (despite the “tough guy” pose he is taking, with all of his military interventions in North Africa, West Africa, etc.), the Minneapolis Star Tribune publishes an editorial today in his praise that includes the above paragraph.
The Star Tribune highlights Sarkozy’s role in establishing “an emerging foreign-policy doctrine deemed ‘right to protect,’ which authorizes urgent action by the international community to protect innocent civilians.”
The Star Tribune editorial is very gracious towards the French president. Sarkozy’s advisors are probably toying with the idea of having the editorial translated into French and distributing it to sympathetic media.
“See! We’re big in Minneapolis – the American heartland! All that stuff about ‘freedom fries’ is forgotten!”
And you cannot fault the editorial writer’s wish to point out that the US and France have had a long and fruitful political partnership – right back to the days of George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette, of Silas Deane and Pierre Beaumarchais.
But the Star Tribune’s view of the “right to protect” doctrine is mistaken. And it misunderstands the implications of Sarkozy’s humanitarian wars.
The goal of the “right to protect” crowd is to set a precedent in Libya (a precedent they tried to create for years in Sudan) that clears the path for more frequent military interventions in the name of “humanitarian” goals.
Their ideal scenario, as a New York Times article analyzing the progress of “right to protect” notes, is that these interventions would be sanctioned in the name of the United Nations.
What the Star Tribune overlooks is that if this doctrine of “right to protect” is enshrined at the UN, then it will give that body (and the “right to protect” folks) more opportunities to demand that the US act more frequently in a world policeman-type role – not less.
The consequences for an overstretched US military are obvious. Sarkozy’s actions thus won’t take any pressure off US soldiers, sailors and airmen. Instead, those actions will only create more demands on them to be sent overseas.
By legitimizing the “right to protect” idea, Sarkozy’s wars will thus result in more “diplomatic, military and financial burdens” on Uncle Sam, not less.
If the Star Tribune believes that the US needs to act less like a global cop, as the editorial implies, then France’s actions in Libya, etc. to promote a “right to protect” doctrine makes Sarkozy part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
