John Quiggin has a post up about foreign policy in which he calls me out. I'm still mulling the meat of the post, but something one of the commenters said struck me:
Sadly, I think most of my fellow countrymen are not going to understand the problems with the Drezner model until they’ve experienced how it works when some other country is top dog.
I have heard some variation of this argument before, though I don't know how widely it is held in the netroots. But if it is, I'm not sure what the point of arguing is, because this strikes me as completely lunatic. Is there anyone who believes that, should Russia or China surpass America to grab the mantle of world superpower, they will allow their actions to be bound by the kind of international law model that Quiggin is proposing? Or that if we voluntarily submitted to be 100% bound by the UN charter, this would somehow lay upon them an inviolable moral obligation to do the same? If leading by example were as effective as some of the netroots commenters seem to imply, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation should have obviated the need for the welfare state.
That leaves one with the question of what to do in a world in which the other states don't voluntarily submit themselves to be bound by a robust international law. Even presuming that we all agree that such a framework would be nice, should America unilaterally act as if we are already living in such a system, even though several of the major players manifestly will not reciprocate? That's a tricky stunt to pull off in a system with no enforcement mechanism outside of your own military power.
Some 30+ years ago, a friend and I were debating the 'moral equivalence' of the US and the USSR. I asked him to carry out a simple thought experiment. First, I said, imagine a world in which the USSR has ceased to exist [though I never imagined that would come true within 15 years]. Now, I said, imagine a world in which the USA has ceased to exist. How would those worlds differ, and which one would you prefer to live in?
My friend, being not only smarter than me but also intellectually honest, immediately saw the difference and acknowledged it.
The idea that US adherence to 'international law' and the common consent of the UN would somehow constrain, encourage, or shame some other emerging 'top dog' (China? India? Russia?) into doing the same betrays a breathtaking disregard for (or ignorance of) historical and contemporary geopolitics. IMHO, at least. YMMV. ..bruce..
That leaves one with the question of what to do in a world in which the other states don't voluntarily submit themselves to be bound by a robust international law. Even presuming that we all agree that such a framework would be nice, should America unilaterally act as if we are already living in such a system, even though several of the major players manifestly will not reciprocate? That's a tricky stunt to pull off in a system with no enforcement mechanism outside of your own military power.
The answer to your question is "Yes," emphatically. That's what is called "leadership," or at any rate it used to be, before "leadership" came to be defined as being the biggest, meanest dog in the junkyard.
I don't know if I have time (or if I'm even the right person) to go back through the history of international relations for you. I hope it suffices to say that the concept of the United Nations relies on the member states all agreeing to be bound by its Charter (and thereby, by "international law" such as there is). That idea is the culmination of centuries of bloody struggle between nation-states and nationalities; it is the best attempt we have made so far to try to get past the endless bloody squabbling over resources and philosophies that has dominated human history. The League of Nations failed because the United States refused to be bound by it, cooperate with it, or support it in any way that did not suit our "national interest" as we parochially saw it; and there is a strong strain of similar thought today, that we should not be bound by any considerations except our own.
If that strain of thought succeeds in controlling our national policy for very much longer, then you may very well see just what happens when collective security is aimed at US. The domestic nationalists have no conception of the world uniting against us. They think we are safe behind the most expensive, most technologically advanced military in the world, and the rest of the world can just go jump in the lake. I see two possible outcomes from that faction winning out: 1) we turn the world into a cinder as we wield our nuclear weapons in a desperate attempt to stave off defeat at the hands of a global military alliance that will far outnumber us; or 2) we are isolated and contained just as the Soviet Union was until such time as sanity returns.
There is a third possibility which I in my optimism refuse to entertain. The United Nations, stripped of our leadership through membership, falls apart and the world returns to the bad old days of shifting alliances and bloody wars. The United States itself may not be affected by this immediately, as no alliance of a small number of states can approach our military power; but our economic might of the past and our ability to project that power are so dependent on foreign resources that inevitably we would be drawn into a dozen petty conflicts, as we are now in Iraq, and our strength would be drained away in a death of a thousand cuts. We would then most likely withdraw within our national borders and husband what strength remained for a steadfast but ultimately futile defense. It would be a repetition of the collapse of Rome, and of the collapse of so many other empires before us through history.
Of course that's all speculation, and I'm just a layman with a BA from the University of Kansas, so I have no authority behind what I say and who knows what really will happen. But it's what I see as all too likely and it drives me to despair. The United States must commit itself again to the United Nations concept; we must, for our own sake, take up again the leadership of the free world, by showing how submitting to be bound by international law protects ALL nations as well as ourselves. I hope we are witnessing the last hurrah of the old nationalism, soon to be swept away by a new spirit of global respect and cooperation. It's our best hope for a future of peace and prosperity.
The idea that US adherence to 'international law' and the common consent of the UN would somehow constrain, encourage, or shame some other emerging 'top dog' (China? India? Russia?) into doing the same betrays a breathtaking disregard for (or ignorance of) historical and contemporary geopolitics.
Bruce, you left out another hypothetical. Imagine a world where neither the USA nor the USSR existed. Would you have liked to live in that world? Your hypotheticals are interesting academic exercises but ultimately of no value; both the United States and the USSR did exist, and so you made your choice and took your chances. The reason you chose the USA was not because it was where you lived, but because of what the USA in your mind stood for. The question you should be asking now is, does it stand now for the same things it did then?
Your focus on the "contemporary geopolitics" blinds you to the sweep of history. The 70-some year history of the Soviet Union and the 230-year history of the United States are blinks of an eye compared to the 2000 years since Rome was founded or the 4000 since Egypt. In your hypothetical hell where the Soviet Union was unopposed by the (missing) United States, do you forget the dissident networks and internal unrest that ultimately brought it down? Those were not the work of the United States, though we certainly supported them. Totalitarian regimes will fall once the people have had enough. That's how it has been throughout history.
As far this fear about a rogue power (or superpower) not cooperating and submitting to international law, why do you see that as a justification for the United States similarly ignoring it? If a thief successfully robs a bank, do you think that then gives you a license to rob banks too? What you really fear is that there will be no consequences to the rogue state ignoring international law, or the consequences amounting to no more than a slap on the wrist. I have to say, first of all there ARE consequences. They may not be as immediate or as instantly gratifying as a Tomahawk cruise missile attack, but there again we don't let the police go around shooting everyone except as a last resort. Secondly, the only way international law will be respected is if enough nations show themselves willing to abide by it. Someone has to take the initiative, the leadership if you will, and the nationalist in me would like to see that be the United States. After all, we helped establish the darned thing! In the short term, yes, it might be painful and we may not always get the justice we think we deserve; but Scooter Libby didn't get justice either, yet I don't see calls for a lynch mob to take matters into their own hands.
The League of Nations failed because the United States refused to be bound by it, cooperate with it, or support it in any way that did not suit our "national interest" as we parochially saw it; and there is a strong strain of similar thought today, that we should not be bound by any considerations except our own. Somehow I suspect that even had the United States enthusiastically supported the League of Nations the Treaty of Versailles still would've impoverished post-WWI Wiemar Republic Germany, the fascist movements of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco still would've risen in Europe, Stalinist Russia still would've sought to expand its territory and Imperial Japan still would've been in the mix.
It's folly to believe that any of those nations would've been persuaded into docility by the moral example of the United States joining the League of Nations.
The reason the League of Nations failed was quite simple; nobody was willing to go to sacrifice lives and treasure in a war to protect Ethiopia from Italy or China from Japan. In fact, when discussing what sanctions to put on Italy, the specific slogan adopted was "all sanctions short of war".
The difference between the League of Nations and the UN amounts to the fact that when the League failed, people admitted it, and realized at the very least something would have to replace it. When the UN failed (i.e., in every war from the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco to the present day, excepting only Korea and the Gulf War), people decided to pretend it wasn't a failure.
It's time to scrap it and admit that collective security doesn't work, never has, and never will. No one will go to war unless they believe they have a national interest at stake worth a war.
The only choices we have are 1) competing nation-states that will make war when they perceive it is in their interests to make war; or 2) establish a world government with a military powerful enough to actually enforce international law against the United States, China, Russia, India, Britain, and France.
All else is wishful thinking on the order of believing in Soviet-style central planning. It was an excusable enthusiasm in 1917, though people should have known better even then; it is willful idiocy in 2007.
It's folly to believe that any of those nations would've been persuaded into docility by the moral example of the United States joining the League of Nations.
Posted by Conor Friedersdorf | August 23, 2007 2:46 PM
If you'll notice I listed more things than just joining the League. We joined the U.N., too, but if we refuse to support it and declare ourselves outside its jurisdiction whenever it suits us the U.N. will be seen as just as irrelevant.
If the United States had been in the League in 1936 and committed troops under League mandate to occupy the Rhineland when France would not, do you think Hitler would not have been deterred? If the United States had joined the League in imposing economic sanctions on Japan in 1933 after the invasion of Manchuria, had not continued to supply scrap iron and other resources, and had helped enforce a blockade against Japan, do you think events in the Pacific might have proceeded differently? Of course we'll never know. But it seems likely to me that ACTIVE participation by the United States in support of the League could have had significant effect.
It's time to scrap it and admit that collective security doesn't work, never has, and never will. No one will go to war unless they believe they have a national interest at stake worth a war.
Collective security works just fine. Name all the "failures" of the United Nations. Let's take a look at them; why did they fail, and how damaging were they? How many wars have been PREVENTED by the U.N.? How many peacekeeping missions have been successful? And how many initiatives other than military ones has the United Nations successfully implemented? There's more to life than wars.
The United Nations will not be perfect; but working through a global body seems to me to be infinitely preferable to relying on national power alone to resolve disputes.
No one will go to war unless they believe they have a national interest at stake worth a war.
What in God's name are Australian troops doing in Iraq? What are PAKISTANI troops doing in eastern CONGO?
Nations join alliances because they feel it is in their interests to be in the alliance. Fighting wars is part of the alliance. They win national brownie points for it. It's not that different from the other kinds of prestige expenditures which nations make -- China's decision to spend umpteen billion dollars on hosting the Olympics, for example.