Unilateral

Wall Street Journal:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been raising the alarm about Darfur--and he also visited there this week--but not until two weeks ago did the Security Council call for an immediate halt to the fighting. This being the U.N., the resolution was toothless. Permanent members China and France are worried about jeopardizing their business interests in Sudan. Pakistan and Algeria, which hold temporary seats, refuse to impose sanctions on a fellow Muslim nation even as it is engaged in the mass killing of Muslims. Rather, the event that finally caught the attention of the government in Khartoum was the Bush Administration's threat last month to impose serious sanctions on Sudan and refuse visas to Sudanese officials. The next day Sudan's president went on state radio to say he had ordered a "complete mobilization" to disarm the warring parties in Darfur. We'll see. This regime is not known for keeping its promises. ... It is fashionable these days to express distaste for American "unilateralism" and "hegemony." The unfolding catastrophe in Darfur offers a chilling view of what the alternative really looks like.

It is unfortunate that there is no such thing currently as a multi-lateral solution to an international problem. There is either U.S. power or doing nothing. In current geo-politics there is no third solution.