Informed Comment on nonintervention as a foreign policy

Informed Comment:
"Guest Op-Ed: US Foreign Policy; the Principle of Non-Intervention" (scroll down to find this article in the link above)

Juan Cole does not name his guest "seasoned observer" but the topic on a non-intervention foreign policy drew my eye.

One point made was that the requests to the UN Security council to extend the Iraq war mandate another year by both Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and Secretary Rice were done without approval by their respective government and were therefore illegal.

"Additional Iran sanctions, originally scheduled for not later than November 30, have been delayed, and it is probable that there will be no additional sanctions. The Security Council extended the Iraq mandate on December 18.

Prime Minister Maliki’s submission to the Security Council, presumably with the assistance of General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker and the White House, requested an extension of the Iraq mandate. He did not present the submission to the Iraqi Council of Representatives for approval, as required by an Iraqi statute. The Sadr Movement and others did not have the opportunity to block it.

The letter of Secretary of State Rice was correspondingly deficient in relation to the subsequent enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and the votes by the Senate December 18 and the House one day later with respect to the Emergency Supplemental Request of President Bush. " (the congress only funded the war until June and bush vetoed that bill anyway so there is actually no authorization.)

The Security Council extended the Iraq mandate for “only one more year.”

Another interesting comment is about the Democrats choices on the "seven foreign policy interventions" the Bush administration has engaged in. I can list three: Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea but don't know the other 4 for sure: Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan and how about Taiwan make 8. Anyway the "seasoned observer" make this prediction: "The Democrats will find it difficult to reverse the New World Order because it would require the PRC (China) to change its principle of non-intervention, which is beyond the control or determining influence of the US Government. The best they can hope to do is wind up the Iraq War by withdrawing substantially all US troops. With respect to Afghanistan, they will be stuck with a war in perpetuity, which cannot be stopped until Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman Zawahiri are “captured or killed,” which will not happen."

And finally he says this: " The foregoing indicates that it would be appropriate and sound policy for the next Administration and Congress to adopt the principle of non-intervention, joining with arguably leading Russia and the PRC (China). In all events, it would appear that substantially all US troops will have to be out of Iraq by the end of 2008, with or without a “victory.” "

I do believe that a "non-intervention foreign policy" is part of the VFP mission statement. Sounds like a step away from Imperialism to me. Happy New Year!