From Game Theory, the best "rules of engagement" for dealing with an Uncontrolled Other Player, is: Strict Reciprocity, with Intermittent Forgiveness.
Under ideal circumstances, this is an ideal response. In practice, though, it is impossibly limiting. It would forbid external action to prevent or arrest internal genocide, to give just one example.
On the other hand, as you say, any set of criteria that can be elucidated can be manipulated to create pretexts for invasions that are actually aimed at goals quite different from those formally stated.
This creates an obvious contradiction: how do we enable response to situations that clearly demand it while preventing nations from twisting any established criteria to justify actions carried out solely for their own benefit.
The only solution I can see to this problem lies in the one element that not one response to my question mentioned: multilateral involvement. If we assume that unilateral invasion under any circumstances is acceptable, we must accept the possibility that governments may manipulate the facts to create the impression that the requisite circumstances exist to justify invasion. If we insist on the approval of regional or worldwide alliances, ideally under conditions in which no single member of the alliance is able to impose its opinions on the others, this sort of manipulation becomes infinitely more difficult. This is not a perfect solution, but I believe it to be the best one available.
Even if any given exercise in unilateral invasion does not involve false pretexts and hidden agendas, the danger of creating a precedent that can later be used to justify other less “pure” exercises remains.
The United States stands in an ambivalent position when faced with this equation. The US, more than any other nation, stands to gain from the establishment of some degree of order in the world. Our business interests span the globe; trade is our lifeblood, millions of our citizens live abroad. The order that we require can only exist through the voluntary adoption by responsible nations of a basic framework of rules governing relations among states. Such rules cannot be unilaterally imposed, even by a superpower: any attempt to impose them would not only fail to achieve the goal of an ordered world community, but would cause disorder on an epic scale.
And that, for the US, is the quandary. We have more to gain than anyone, in the long term, from the existence of an orderly framework for conflict resolution. Yet many Americans refuse to accept even the possibility of submitting to a set of rules that we did not create, and which might at some point bind us when we do not wish to be bound. The rules must bind all, or they bind none. If they bind none, we will ultimately have chaos.
The manner in which we choose to resolve this conflict will largely define our future as a nation, and may be the single most significant factor defining the medium-term future of the world. That’s a responsibility that some among us take rather lightly, in my opinion.
PS: Somebody, of course, will point out that the Iraqis have repeatedly broken the rules. I would reply that the issue is not whether rules have been broken, the issue is the appropriate response, and the appropriate mechanism for determining that response. We must consider the possibility that the long-term damage that unilateral action will do to the international system of conflict resolution may be a greater threat to order than Saddam Hussein. |
