Excuses for attacking, revisited:
In the 1780s, the newly-independant 13 colonies faced a similar situation. They saw that, unless all the colonies gave up power to a new Federal Government, that soon Massachussets would erect tariff barriers against goods from New York; and Pennsylvania and Virginia would go to war over who owned the Ohio Valley; and Outsiders with Other Agendas (England, France, Spain) would make mischief. Negotiation between colonies (whether bilateral or multilateral), depending on good will, hoping for the best, autarchy in each colony, any voluntary mechanism for conflict resolution, none of these would suffice. So, they created something New.
Reading your posts, I think you are groping towards the same conclusions the NeoConservatives are. The Hawks in the Bush Administration say:
1. for our National Security, we are obligated to establish a code of conduct for all nations. There can be no exceptions, this Code must be globally enforced, or the terrorists will have a Safe Haven and build WMD and use them on us.
2. this code of conduct regulates, not just how nations treat each other, but internal matters as well (weapons technology, who and how many of their own a government can kill, etc.)
3. the necessity of making this Code is so pressing, we can't wait to get multilateral agreement; we can't even wait till we get consensus among our core allies (NATO, Japan, S. Korea), we have to decide unilaterally and act now
4. and since nobody else has the will and power to do it, we also have to enforce these rules, unilaterally.
5. the enforcement has to be proactive. The potential crime is so harmful, the criminals must be arrested before they do it.
You also, see a need for an "orderly framework for conflict resolution". The main difference is, you want the rules to be made and enforced by committee, rather than a Hegemon. but otherwise, you see the same problem, and the same basic solution.
And really, what you and the NeoCons are talking about, is something so ambitious, it's the most Utopian Idea in Foreign Relations. You are talking about an embryonic World Government. That's what it amounts to, once you've created a set of rules for all nation-states to follow, and a formal structure to decide when the rules have been broken, and a mechanism to enforce those rules globally. The Law, Courts, and Army of a newborn World Government, that will take away from the 200 nation-states the power they have always had, the power to wage war against each other. Beginning with abolishing the power to wage war using WMD, but once that is established, it's a small step to outlawing all war.
Maybe the world is ready for an Idea that big. But it is unlikely to happen by consensus. All Ideas, and especially all Big Ideas, are pushed to Mass Adoption by an initial Champion, and/or a dedicated small cadre of Early Adopters and Enthusiasts. They push, prod, cajole, ridicule and threaten the laggards, gradually (and usually with much friction) overcoming the vast inertia of everyone else, and the fierce opposition of conservatives who benefit from the Status Quo. And sometimes they get crucified before their Idea goes on to Mass Adoption (that's an occupational hazard of any person/group/nation Championing a very New Idea).
President Bush is an Enthusiast. He got an Idea after 9/11, and his Idea is very very ambitious.
In order to succeed, the Early Adopter has to gain enough converts to share the burden, before he is exhausted. It's a race against time. The Champion is in an unstable position: being first, and acting alone, he takes huge risks, and has huge costs that the laggards don't have. He has to push forward relentlessly, recklessly, and get his Idea widely adopted, or at some point in the near/medium-term future, he will abruptly run out of his Venture Capital, and collapse (and his Idea will get tossed on the Ash-heap of History). Of course, pushing ahead recklessly is risky. The safest strategy is to be a Laggard, and only jump on the bandwagon when an Idea is clearly gaining momentum. Enthusiasts frequently slam abruptly into hard walls, rush over cliffs, and are always bloodied, even in victory. |
