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.
Good point Steven, something to consider is under what framework this adoption is to be declared valid? Shall the agreement of a dictator in Libya determine the framework of agreement? Shall one nation such as France, Russia or Germany, cast the deciding stop-vote?
The spirit of what you're saying seems reasonable; it's the process and the way you define 'unilateral' which is suspect. In the U.N. today, one nation on the Security Council can cast a vote and vanquish the others. The process and structure gives the same power you fear America will use unilaterally, to other nations. In matters of war, 100% agreement will rarely occur. Less than that, the claim that "they are acting unilaterally" can always be made.
The precise adoption of what constitutes the framework of consensus is where the struggle begins and ends.
America rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan, formed NATO, and expressed the hope of collective security in the United Nations. America has taken the lead and will continue to take the lead in assuming the responsibility of defending freedom and democracy. It's a responsibility only we can bear. Others are simply not capable of shouldering this burden. With that responsibility an exercise in leadership is called for. Leadership is about creating the environment in which internal motivation to change becomes more likely to occur. Leadership at its core is about being a "change agent". However, in the final analysis, motivation to change must come from within. When faced with this challenge, we must accept the notion that not every nation will be persuaded to change. If the issue is important enough to our national security, we must force compliance and let history be the judge of whether we were right or wrong.
Every nation in the world wasn't attacked on 9/11. America was. That simple truth is what many forget when academically analyzing the decisions of whether we go to war.
Struggling to find the one perfect model we can point to and say "this is what justifies war" may give us a sense of stability and peace of mind, but, in the real dynamic changing world will live, it's a false state of mind, and nothing by a rough draft on paper.
"All models are wrong, some models show important correlations" is as true today as when Forrester said it 60 years ago. |
