CODA: Rhetorical Internationalism

• Published in: World policy journal Vol. 16; no. 4; p. 113
• Main Author: Chace, James
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Durham Duke University Press, NC & IL 01.01.1999
• Subjects: Government
• ISSN: 0740-2775; 1936-0924

While the Democrats in Congress have a far better record in supporting multinational initiatives, too often many of them espouse what I would call 'rhetorical internationalism.' The Democratic administration, buffeted by the prevailing anti-internationalist sentiment, was forced to back away from its own espousal of 'assertive internationalism.' In particular, the final version of Presidential Decision Directive 25, which was issued after much revision in May 1994, posed so many questions and set so many conditions as to make virtually impossible not only American participation in, but also U.S. approval of, future peacekeeping operations. As Brian Urquhart, former U.N. under secretary general, has pointed out, 'the directive reverted to the highly restrictive criteria established by [former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], which provided for US participation in international operations only when the US was in control, the public was overwhelmingly in favor, and victory was clearly assured.' In the second Clinton term, the administration did not sign the treaty banning the use of landmines or the Rome Treaty establishing an international criminal court.