| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| A Fantastic Article defending Unilateralism-From the Wilson Quaterly! |
| 2004-05-01 |
| (For Aris, of course) Here is a selection from the article The fundamental question is this: Which of two visions of world order will the United States use its vast power to advance? Since World War II, much of âoldâ Europe has been pursuing an antinational, antidemocratic world constitutionalism that, for all its idealism and achievements, is irreconcilable with Americaâs commitment to democratic self-government. There is, among international lawyers, a hazy notion that the emergence of the international community in the world of law and politics is itself a democratic development. The unfortunate reality, however, is that international law is a threat to democracy and to the hopes of democratic politics all over the world. For some, that may be a reason to support internationalism; for others, a reason to oppose it. Either way, the fundamental conflicts between democracy and international law must be recognized. The United Nations and the other institutions of international law take world government as their ideal. In theory, thereâs no necessary conflict between democracy and the ideal of a world government. A world government could be perfectly democraticâif there were world democracy. But at present, there is no world democracy, and, as a consequence, international governance organizations are, at present, necessarily and irremediably antidemocratic. The antidemocratic qualities of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other international governance organizationsâtheir centralization, their opacity, their remoteness from popular or representative politics, their elitism, their unaccountabilityâare well known. Internationalists counter this criticism by pointing to the growing influence of ânongovernmental organizationsâ (NGOs) in international law circles, as if these equally unaccountable, self-appointed, unrepresentative organizations somehow spoke for world public opinion. But the fundamentally antidemocratic nature of international governance is not merely a small hole that NGOs might plug. World government in the absence of world democracy is necessarily technocratic, bureaucratic, diplomaticâeverything but democratic. Nor are international organizations undemocratic only in themselves; they undermine the hopes and vitality of democratic politics elsewhere. The point is familiar to every nation in Latin America that has seen its internal policies dictated by IMF or World Bank directives. To an increasing extent, democratic politics throughout the developing world is being displaced by a relentless demand for competitiveness and growth, which are authoritatively interpreted by international organs to require the implementation of designated social, political, and economic policies (so far, these have had rather mixed success in delivering competitiveness and growth, though they have contributed to several national catastrophes, as in Argentina). The irony is that the United States remains the worldâs greatest champion of internationalism in economic affairs. Weaker countries correctly perceive U.S.-led marketization programs as deeply undercutting their own ability to decide for themselves what their social and economic policies should be. To be sure, the United States does not exactly force economic policy on other countries. Ruling elites agree to the emasculation of their countriesâ politics in order to get their hands on the money. But the result is the same: Democracy is hollowed out. So all the talk of U.S. unilateralism needs an important qualification. The United States plays utterly contradictory roles on the international stage: It champions multilateralism on the economic front, because worldwide free trade and marketization are perceived to serve U.S. interests, and resists it elsewhere. But if a commitment to democracy is what underlies Americaâs growing unilateralism today on matters of war, criminal law, human rights, and the environment, that commitment is violated wherever U.S.-led international economic organizations cripple the possibilities of democracy under the guise of free-trade principles and loan conditionality. The American and French revolutions tied democracy to the ideal of a self-determining nation. (If the European Union should successfully forge itself into a democratic mega-nation, it would be another example of this linkage, not a counterexample.) Two hundred years later, there remains no realistic prospect of world democracy, and if there were such a prospect, the United States would resist it, because world decision making would very likely be unfriendly to America. But though the United States would be no friend of world democracy, it ought to be a friend to a world of democracies, of self-governing nation-states, each a democracy in its own politics. For now, the hopes of democratic politics are tied to the fortunes of the nation-state. Europeans tend to neglect or minimize the damage that universal constitutionalism does to the prospects for variation, experimentation, and radical change opened up by national democracy. So long as democracy is allied with national self-government rather than with world governance, it remains an experimental ideal, dedicated to the possibility of variation, perhaps radical variation, among peoples with different values and different objectives. Democratic national constitutionalism may be parochial within a given nation, but itâs cosmopolitan across nations. Democratic peoples are permitted, even expected, to take different paths. Theyâre permitted, even expected, to go to hell in their own way. That is what the ideology of international human rights and of a global market will not allow. Both press for uniformity among nations on some of the most basic questions of politics. Both, therefore, stand against democracy. The response from the Right will be that a market economy is a precondition of a flourishing democracy, so international free trade and lending institutions cannot be called antidemocratic. Rejecting the Rightâs claim to the transcendental democratic necessity of the IMF or the World Trade Organization, the Left will reply that the existence of a capitalist economy and the particular form it should take are matters for independent nations to decide for themselves. But the Left, for its part, will insist that international human rights, the abolition of the death penalty, and environmental protections are necessary preconditions of democracy. To which the Right will reply that these are matters for independent nations to decide for themselves. Claims that any particular multilateral order, whether humanitarian or economic, is a necessary condition of democracy should be received with extreme skepticism. We all tend to sympathize with such claims when theyâre made in behalf of policies we support, but to see through the same claims when theyâre in behalf of policies we oppose. To be sure, in some cases of national crisis and political breakdown, international governance has brought about stability and democratization. And for the many nations incapable at present of sustaining a flourishing democratic politics, international law offers the hope of economic and political reforms these nations cannot achieve on their own. But every time a functioning, self-determining nation surrenders itself to the tender mercies of international economic or political regimes, it pays a price. The idea that men and women can be their own governors is sacrificed, and democracy suffers a loss. The justification of unilateralism outlined here is not intended to condone American disdain for the views of other nations. On the contrary, America should always show a decent respect for the opinions of the rest of mankind, and America would be a far safer, healthier place if it could win back some of the support and affection it has lost. Unilateralism does not set its teeth against international cooperation or coalition building. What sets its teeth on edge is the shift that occurs when such cooperation takes the form of binding agreements administered, interpreted, and enforced by multilateral bodiesâthe shift, in other words, from international cooperation to international law. Americaâs commitment to democratic self-government gives the United States good reason to be skeptical aboutâindeed, to resistâinternational legal regimes structured, as they now are, around antinationalist and antidemocratic principles. The unilateralism I am defending is not a license for aggressive U.S. militarism. It is commanded by the aspirations of democracy and would violate its own essential principles if it were to become an engine of empire. But the great and unsettling fact of 21st-century global governance is that America is doomed to become something like a world policeman. With the development of small, uncontainable nuclear technologies, and with the inability of the United Nations to do the job, the United States will be in the business of using force abroad against real or feared criminal activity to a far greater extent than ever before. This new American role will be deeply dangerous, to other nations and to our own, not least because American presidents may be tempted to use the role of worldâs law enforcer as a justification for a new American militarism that has the United States constantly waging or preparing for war. If the United States is going to act unilaterally abroad, itâs imperative that in our domestic politics we retain mechanisms for combating presidential overreaching. Since September 11, 2001, the White House has flirted with a dangerous double unilateralism, joining the presidentâs willingness to act without international consent abroad to an effort to bypass Congress and the judiciary at home. In December 2001, without congressional approval, the president announced the withdrawal of the United States from an important missile treaty with Russia. In early 2002, the White House began claiming a presidential power to deem any individual, including an American citizen arrested on American soil, an âenemy combatantâ and on that basis to imprison him indefinitely, with no judicial review. Later that year, the president came close to asserting a power to make war on Iraq without express congressional authorization. This double unilateralism, which leaves presidential power altogether unchecked, is a great danger. If we are to be unilateralists abroad, we have a special responsibilityâto ourselves and to the worldâto maintain and reinvigorate the vital checks and balances of American constitutionalism at home. This is just a fragment of the article in question, check it out |
| Posted by:Ernest Brown |
| #15 There was no mention of benevolence in #7, then again there was no mention of despotism either. In post #7 I make a semi-joking comparison to the way veto is wielded by the mullahs in non-democratic Iran and the way the veto is used by the US (and France and Russia and UK and China) in the non-democratic "world government" of the United Nations. But I concede that my statement did feel semi-trollish. Sorry for that. I did mean it more like humour however, instigated by "For Aris of course," of the original poster, which I'm still not entirely certain what he meant by. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-02 8:52:42 PM |
| #14 I've reviewed post #7, and I fail to see any reference to "benevolence", just a direct equation betweem the governments of the USA and Iran. If you throw a rhetorical bomb like that, you shouldn't be surprised when someone reacts in kind. However, in reviewing my own posts, I see too much of a reliance on ad hominem attacks, which just muddy the water. I'll try to tone it down a bit. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-05-02 9:08:45 AM |
| #13 Here you go for benevolent despotism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism Hmm, absolute rulers using their power to institute reforms in the political and social structure of the areas they control -- doesn't it remind you a tiny bit of what's being currently attempted in Iraq? And it'd be better if you followed a tactic where you argued more about the content of what I say than about the way I said them. If I'm rude or "aggressive" then boohoohoo, I'm not the first or worst in this forum in this respect. If I'm wrong or mistaken, then correct me, don't criticize my style. And if we differ in interpretations then discuss. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 9:56:22 PM |
| #12 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=despot Your own problem if you've never heard of benevolent despotism. Google it up. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 9:50:49 PM |
| #11 According to Webster's, a despot is one "exercising power abusively, oppressively, or tyrannically". So once more Aris follows insult with passive-aggressive non-apology. But hey, why not. Many around here seem to buy your pseudo-friendly bullshit. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-05-01 9:47:57 PM |
| #10 You know, the usual point of a smiley is to indicate that something is a joke. Or a semi-joke atleast. Besides, I've been accused of being a troll long enough. I've started to feel that when people intentionally mention my name in a thread without clear reason, I'll let them down if I can't provide them with atleast one sentence to insult me over. But if you want a more intellectual and less evasive response, I'll clarify yet again (and once and for all) that the US is a hundred times more benevolent a despot than the mullahs of Iran, or the Communists of China, or the Baathists of Syria, or the Kims of North Korea and so forth and so forth. Or even of Putin of Russia. But the question of benevolence is a subtly different one than the question of despotism -- in a world without an effective democratically elected world government, the untouchable and uncontrolled US does indeed possess the role of a benevolent despot in its mostly arbitrary interventions -- as seen in Kosovo, as seen in Iraq. And as Dan mentioned and I expanded on US will never enter an world government it won't be able to control, never cede that position of despotism. You are not the only despot in the world ofcourse, just the most far-reaching one. As I just said Russia is even more strict and far less benevolent a despot in most of the sphere of the former USSR, even as China is a despot (and just as bad if not worse a one) in its own sphere. Cheers. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 9:13:05 PM |
| #9 Actually, you do more then compare, you equate. Unbelievable. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-05-01 7:52:01 PM |
| #8 Yeah Aris, compare the USA and the Mullahs of Iran and "smile" while ya do it. Ya miserable shite. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-05-01 7:49:41 PM |
| #7 I'm not certain, why you point me out specifically in in this -- I must be among the people of Rantburg who have *least* used either 'unilateral' or 'multilateral' as an expression. As to the article, could someone atleast point it out specifically? The link points to the whole list of essays, and since you don't even specify the article's name, it's rather difficult to read in its entirety. Thanks. --- On the whole I tend to agree with the fragment of the article I've read. "as long as americacan believe in the constitution we would never be part of a world govt.." Some people (I think ones that do believe in the constitution) have claimed UN resolutions as both a moral and legal justification for the invasion of Iraq -- that automatically places UN in the position of world government with its resolutions being the law, and the US army as its policing body. The G5 would never feel this being a world government ofcourse since it can't touch them at all -- and the smaller nations rarely feel it since they have to fall to the G5's (especially the US) disfavour before anything that the UN decides seriously affects them. And in the case they fall to the G5's disfavour the existence or not of UN is hardly likely to save them. In short, there does exist a nominal (metaphorically) "world government", except it's so weak that it doesn't even dare to bear the name. And it's also non-democratic ofcourse. :-) Perhaps, Dan, you mean that USA would never become part of a world government in which it wouldn't wield a veto. The same way that the Mullahs of Iran would never accept any Iranian government in which they wouldn't wield likewise a veto for each piece of legislation. :-) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-01 6:26:57 PM |
| #6 as long as americacan believe in the constitution we would never be part of a world govt.. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-05-01 3:04:16 PM |
| #5 From a2u's link: "Islam, on the other hand, deeply respects vows, treaties and agreements and warns against the serious consequences of their violation, Dissouki averred." This is so much bull,Sharia says it is absolutly alright to lie to,steal from,break contracts,enslave,impose unfair taxes,and murder unbelievers(i.e.anybody not a Muslem).In other words if International Law is based on Sharia,and you are not a Muslem you are so screwed. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4698 2004-05-01 7:44:56 AM |
| #4 -- the president announced the withdrawal of the United States from an important missile treaty with Russia.-- No, we withdrew from a treaty which was signed by something that wasn't there anymore. Let's throw some more into the "international law" mix, sharia - via Silent Running: here |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-05-01 1:32:41 AM |
| #3 double unilateralism....? Ice cream me thinks. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-01 1:26:38 AM |
| #2 Economic and product standardization between countries is usually a good thing because that kind of limited regulation assists the market and results in prosperity and consumer confidence. I would fight the US joining a democracy of democracies if the other members were committed to socialist economic policies. As for joining an uber-government that included Kim, Castro, Chavez and a parade of other kooks, that's a non-starter. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-01 12:46:24 AM |
| #1 Referring link needs to be fixed. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-05-01 12:17:23 AM |