Reading your posts, I think you are groping towards the same conclusions the NeoConservatives are.
Swords or pistols, your choice. Bring a second.
If we look for common ground among these contentions, what do we find….
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.
I don’t think “we” are obligated to establish a code of conduct, neither do I think “we” can. I do think a code of conduct is necessary. It already exists, though both it and the mechanism for its enforcement are in their embryonic stages. I would emphatically not agree on the notion that “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.” If there is real evidence that terrorists are building WMD in a safe haven, that needs to be addresses. The important thing, to me, is developing a framework within which such issues can be addressed multilaterally.
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.)
To some extent, I agree with this. There are things that the civilized nationsof the world cannot just sit by and watch. I do believe that intervention in these cases should be exercised with as much restraint as possible. I’ve long believed that the UN should maintain a small armed force – I’d like to see them hire several regiments of Gurkhas – for use as a rapid intervention force in cases like Rwanda, where government has simply ceased to exist and people are being slaughtered. Even to the greatest of cynics (me included) there are cases where humanitarian intervention is necessary.
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
I reject this contention completely. One of the core neocon arguments is that Islamic extremism and terrorism represent such a clear and drastic threat to western civilization that we cannot afford to go through these laborious processes. I reject this argument completely: this threat is nowhere near that which was posed by fascism or communism, and any attempt to compare them is absurd.
4. and since nobody else has the will and power to do it, we also have to enforce these rules, unilaterally.
Rejected. The danger of setting a precedent for unilateral enforcement is greater than the danger posed by any existing individual threat.
5. the enforcement has to be proactive. The potential crime is so harmful, the criminals must be arrested before they do it.
I would accept this proposition in only the most extreme cases, and preferably where a multilateral consensus on the gravily and imminence of the threat exists.
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.
What other solution is available? There will always be conflict. Either we create an orderly framework to resolve conflict or we go back to doing it the disorderly way: the good old days of world wars.
The question of whether the framework will be developed by something approaching consensus or imposed by a hegemon is no question at all. The days in which order could be imposed are long gone. Any unilateral attempt to impose order can only create more disorder.
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.
It could be seen this way, yes. It could also be seen as a network of agreements that have some features of a very minimalist government.
Maybe the world is ready for an Idea that big.
I think the world needs 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.
It certainly won’t happen quickly by consensus. A leader is needed, yes, but not a dictatorial leader. If we want to lead, we have to provide leadership of the same quality that Americans expect of their leaders, meaning that we have to lead with the consent of and some degree of accountability to those we lead. The free world cannot be led any other way. If it could be, it wouldn’t be the free world.
President Bush is an Enthusiast. He got an Idea after 9/11, and his Idea is very very ambitious.
His idea is a Pax Americana: ambitious, difficult to achieve, and impossible to sustain. My idea is more ambitious, more difficult to achieve, and potentially sustainable.
Multilateral conflict resolution is cumbersome, slow, and complicated. The same can be said of many aspects of the US government. There have been and will be many occasions when pressing programs have been delayed by the need to develop congressional support. There have been and will be times when criminals have escaped because police had to get a warrant, or have been released because there was insufficient evidence to convict them. These things have happened, but they are the price we pay for the protection of a system that works. Would any of us rather live in a country where the executive could legislate, where the police could seize people without a warrant, or the justice system could lock people up without due process? |
