Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
Interview With James Traub
Aired November 16, 2002 - 18:23 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush went to the United Nations to back him up in a strong stand against Iraq, all the while making it quite clear he was ready to send in the troops with or without the U.N.'s blessing.
So, in the post-Cold War era when the U.S. military reigns supreme, how much does the U.N., and in particular, the U.N. Security Council, really matter? On tomorrow's issue of "The New York Times Magazine," contributing writer James Traub takes that question head on in an article called, "Welcome To The New World Order." Traub joins us from our New York bureau.
Thanks for being with us, James.
JAMES TRAUB, "THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE": Well, thank you.
COOPER: It is really an interesting article. In it you write that the Iraq resolution was the first test case of the new world of American super-supremacy. In what way was it the first test case?
TRAUB: Well, it is the first time when you had the United States not only as the global super-power but also with the kind of unilateral spirit the Bush administration has. Having a situation where they were going to go before the Security Council and essentially try to have their way with an organization that in many ways is deeply suspicious of them. And so the question that was going to be posed was, is there any common ground between this great super- power, that doesn't have to get the approval of the Security Council, on the one hand.
And on the other hand, the Security Council, which has a quite different view of what should properly be done with Iraq. So, the fact that they actually in the end arrived at a strong resolution, which was voted on unanimously, 15 to nothing, was something of a surprise and certainly a positive outcome.
COOPER: Well, it's interesting, in the article too, is you talk to a lot of diplomats from, like Brazil and France, who say that -- you know, there's this kind of, two battles you have to face on the Security Council, on the one hand it is reigning in Iraq. And other hand it is also reigning in the United States. It is sort of a surprising thing to hear.
TRAUB: Yes, as that was the ambassador from Brazil, Ambassador Fonseca, who said it is dual containment, contain Iraq, contain the United States. COOPER: And contain the U.S. in what way?
TRAUB: That's the point. It is obviously two different meanings of the word containment. But what he meant, and what all of these diplomats say to me, both U.N. professionals and Security Council ambassadors, is that they recognize that unless the United States considers the Security Council a useful instrument, then the United States will -- will leave.
And without the United States the Security Council is meaningless. They all say, the Security Council must be a mirror of the world. It can pretend as if they were equals of the United States, they're not. And so, the U.S. can make the Security Council irrelevant, if it chooses to. And so the goal of the Security Council diplomats is to make the United States feel that the Security Council is a valuable instrument for them, without turning it into a rubber stamp, without simply approving of American policy, especially, when it is a policy that makes them very nervous.
COOPER: Because, as you pointed out in the article, in the end the U.N. Security Council needs the U.S. I mean, it is this odd relationship where, I mean, some might say the U.S. doesn't need the Security Council, they can go it alone. But you can't really say that of the Security Council and the United States.
TRAUB: Right. Nobody ever doubted that the Security Council need the U.S. And these people, they chafe under American bullying. You hear the resentment all the time. That when the Americans don't pay their dues to the U.N., when the Americans don't sign treaties, when the Americans seek to negotiate exceptions for themselves in those treaties, that in any case they do not sign, it drives people crazy. And they resent the bullying, and yet, they know they have to wait (ph).
So, that is their understanding of the world. Now, the big surprise, was that the United States, which as of August, the Bush administration, seemed clearly to be prepared to act unilaterally, without the Security Council, without a resolution, without going the route of the inspectors. President Bush was persuaded, I believe, by Secretary of State Colin Powell, that in the end the price the United States would have to pay for going through the Security Council, in delay, in constraint, in whatever slight nudging aside of the original policy goal, was worth it because of what they would get from the Security Council, which was the international approval of the course which I think they still very much hope to take, which is an invasion of Iraq.
COOPER: All right, James Traub, we are out of time. Thank you so much. The article is in tomorrow's "New York Times Sunday Magazine." It is very interesting. I appreciate you coming in to talk about it. Thank you.
TRAUB: Well, thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired November 16, 2002 - 18:23 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush went to the United Nations to back him up in a strong stand against Iraq, all the while making it quite clear he was ready to send in the troops with or without the U.N.'s blessing.
So, in the post-Cold War era when the U.S. military reigns supreme, how much does the U.N., and in particular, the U.N. Security Council, really matter? On tomorrow's issue of "The New York Times Magazine," contributing writer James Traub takes that question head on in an article called, "Welcome To The New World Order." Traub joins us from our New York bureau.
Thanks for being with us, James.
JAMES TRAUB, "THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE": Well, thank you.
COOPER: It is really an interesting article. In it you write that the Iraq resolution was the first test case of the new world of American super-supremacy. In what way was it the first test case?
TRAUB: Well, it is the first time when you had the United States not only as the global super-power but also with the kind of unilateral spirit the Bush administration has. Having a situation where they were going to go before the Security Council and essentially try to have their way with an organization that in many ways is deeply suspicious of them. And so the question that was going to be posed was, is there any common ground between this great super- power, that doesn't have to get the approval of the Security Council, on the one hand.
And on the other hand, the Security Council, which has a quite different view of what should properly be done with Iraq. So, the fact that they actually in the end arrived at a strong resolution, which was voted on unanimously, 15 to nothing, was something of a surprise and certainly a positive outcome.
COOPER: Well, it's interesting, in the article too, is you talk to a lot of diplomats from, like Brazil and France, who say that -- you know, there's this kind of, two battles you have to face on the Security Council, on the one hand it is reigning in Iraq. And other hand it is also reigning in the United States. It is sort of a surprising thing to hear.
TRAUB: Yes, as that was the ambassador from Brazil, Ambassador Fonseca, who said it is dual containment, contain Iraq, contain the United States. COOPER: And contain the U.S. in what way?
TRAUB: That's the point. It is obviously two different meanings of the word containment. But what he meant, and what all of these diplomats say to me, both U.N. professionals and Security Council ambassadors, is that they recognize that unless the United States considers the Security Council a useful instrument, then the United States will -- will leave.
And without the United States the Security Council is meaningless. They all say, the Security Council must be a mirror of the world. It can pretend as if they were equals of the United States, they're not. And so, the U.S. can make the Security Council irrelevant, if it chooses to. And so the goal of the Security Council diplomats is to make the United States feel that the Security Council is a valuable instrument for them, without turning it into a rubber stamp, without simply approving of American policy, especially, when it is a policy that makes them very nervous.
COOPER: Because, as you pointed out in the article, in the end the U.N. Security Council needs the U.S. I mean, it is this odd relationship where, I mean, some might say the U.S. doesn't need the Security Council, they can go it alone. But you can't really say that of the Security Council and the United States.
TRAUB: Right. Nobody ever doubted that the Security Council need the U.S. And these people, they chafe under American bullying. You hear the resentment all the time. That when the Americans don't pay their dues to the U.N., when the Americans don't sign treaties, when the Americans seek to negotiate exceptions for themselves in those treaties, that in any case they do not sign, it drives people crazy. And they resent the bullying, and yet, they know they have to wait (ph).
So, that is their understanding of the world. Now, the big surprise, was that the United States, which as of August, the Bush administration, seemed clearly to be prepared to act unilaterally, without the Security Council, without a resolution, without going the route of the inspectors. President Bush was persuaded, I believe, by Secretary of State Colin Powell, that in the end the price the United States would have to pay for going through the Security Council, in delay, in constraint, in whatever slight nudging aside of the original policy goal, was worth it because of what they would get from the Security Council, which was the international approval of the course which I think they still very much hope to take, which is an invasion of Iraq.
COOPER: All right, James Traub, we are out of time. Thank you so much. The article is in tomorrow's "New York Times Sunday Magazine." It is very interesting. I appreciate you coming in to talk about it. Thank you.
TRAUB: Well, thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
