Home › Discussions › Reshaping the World Order
Reshaping the World Order
Summary --
The current architecture of international institutions must be updated, but skeptics question whether the United States is up to the task. They need not worry: the United States still possesses enough power and legitimacy to spearhead reform.
Comments
Reshaping the World Order
In their essay, “Reshaping the World Order,” Brooks and Wohlforth argue for the United States to take the lead in revising international institutions because the U.N. Security Council and other international institutions are not well configured to meet the challenges of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, financial instability and global warming. What is disturbing about this essay is its focus on how taking on this leadership role will enhance U.S. power and the methods the U.S. should use to project its influence (propaganda and duplicity) within the institutions. There is no suggestion that highly desirable moral goals such as peace, prosperity and justice should enter the picture.
Brooks and Wohlforth begin by asserting, “In an anarchic world of self-interested states . . . the chances that those states will cooperate are best when a hegemon takes the lead.” Later in the essay they describe how leading states of the past, Spain, France, Britain, used bribery, coercion and intimidation to force other states to “cooperate.” It would appear self-evident that the hegemon would benefit from such an arrangement, but not necessarily the rest of the community of nations. They believe the United States should take on the role of hegemon by taking advantage of international institutions which the U.S. can exploit to expand its power.
The authors criticize the Bush Administration for failing “to recognize that leading powers benefit from setting up and working within international institutions.” They quote Barak Obama, “Instead of constraining our power, these institutions magnified it,” and point out that “Realist statesmen such as George Kennan and realiest scholars such as Robert Gilpin have shown that institutions generally enable leading states more than they constrain them.” Brooks and Wohlforth go on to state, “When the constrains become excessive in a particular institution, the United States is sufficiently powerful that it can pull back from cooperating.” The centrality of U.S. power, not the overarching goals of the institution, is the implied prime motive for participation.
The methods recommended for influencing international institutions are not honesty and integrity but duplicity and equivocation: “The United States continues to have a far larger share of the human and material resources for shaping global perceptions than any other state, as well as the unrivaled wherewithal to produce public goods that reinforce the benefits of its global role.” The emphasis is on shaping perceptions, not actually producing a better world, and using “public goods” to “reinforce the benefits of its global role,” in other words bribery.
In discussing a strategy for reform, Brooks and Wohlforth explained how the principle of “reciprocity” in international affairs can be used to dupe other nations into enhancing U.S. power: “Given that reciprocity is one of the basic principles underlying the current institutional order, the more states are convinced that they stand to benefit under a new or revised institution, the less they will be inclined to object to it.” The word “convinced” is key; it is not that there should be true reciprocity, but only that other states be “convinced” of it. They continue, “The [Proliferation Security] initiative explicitly created new de jure rights for other parties, even though de facto only the United States gained any new rights. For example, the PSI-related bilateral treaty between the United States and Liberia accords each country the right to board, search, and detain the cargo of any vessel on the high seas that is flying the other country’s flag and is suspected of trafficking in weapons of mass destruction – even though Liberia (which has the second-largest shipping registry in the world) has no navy.” This is the opposite of reciprocity, and a clear case of duplicity.
The essay ends with an explicit statement supporting the hijacking of international institutions to promote U.S. interests: “Updating the current architecture of international institutions . . . is imperative if new global challenges are to be met and the national interests of the United States are to be best advanced.”
Joseph. K
It would be difficult to expect the United States to resist serving its own interests.
Therefore the greater concern should be that, if the United States follows the suggestions you refer to here, it will will be making its own stability - and by extension the stability of the international organisations it lends support to - far less sustainable.
The United States is not best served by so baldly serving its own interests.
U.S. and Int'l. Institutions
The United States should resist serving narrowly defined selfish interests of political and economic aggrandizement at the expense of other countries through manipulation, intimidation and duplicity, as was suggested by Brooks and Wohlforth.
U.S. participation and leadership in international institutions to further world peace, justice, and prosperity, and to ameliorate the problems of nuclear proliferation, global terrorism and climate change is in its interest and that of all nations. Pursuing these goals by engaging other countries with mutual respect and integrity will bring far more sustainable stability than when the U.S. conducts itself as a hegemon.
Duplicity?
Your example of the US' deceit and duplicity in the Treaty between the US and Libera ignores two facts.
First, Libera may be very willing to try to rid it's flag of the weapons, civil war, and illict goods label that so many associate it with. Clean the flag and clean the image of the country.
Second, it assumes that every country in the world is ignorant to the fact that everything the US does somehow is of benefit to the US. At this point in history I hardly think there is a country that doesn't recognize that the US got to where it was by as you put it "taking advantage of international institutions which the U.S. can exploit to expand its power".
The US will always be self interested, the day it stops being so is the day that it will stop being a superpower and will fall the way of Brittan. Moral Leadership will only get us so far in the world. It didn't get us Peace in the Middle East and it didn't bring us an end to the cold war. Brute force and the will to do everything in our power is what ended the cold war and is what is needed in the Middle East. Asking nicely is great when you talk to a 6 year old, not when speaking with dictators.
Brute Force
I believe most countries would like to see the U.S. as a moral leader, but instead recognize, as you state, that the U.S. exploits international institutions to expand its power. The U.S. should act in its own interests; the key question is: What are those interests? Hopefully not limited to narrowly defined selfish interests of political and economic aggrandizement at the expense of other countries through manipulation, intimidation and duplicity, as was suggested by Brooks and Wohlforth.
You state that Moral Leadership did not get us Peace in the Middle East or end the cold war. What moral leadership? In the Middle East, the U.S. has overthrown democratically elected governments (Mosaddeq Iran), supported oppressive regimes (Saddam Hussein pre-1990, the Saudi Royal Family) and supported Israel’s violations of international law (settlements in occupied territory). During the cold war the U.S. allied itself with morally repugnant dictators such as Samoza in Nicaragua and Marcos in the Philippines.
Your faith in brute force is sorely misplaced. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union collapsed; its system was weak and exhausted. Its fall did not result from any application of force which proved how exaggerated a threat it was. In the Middle East, Israel has frequently turned to the use of force to address its adversaries with only short term benefit at a very high human cost and no long term peace.
Diluting our Sovereignty
It is one thing to be concerned about another country's peoples and welfare, it is quite another to put another country's needs ahead of our own. Working with foreign entities to reach mutually agreeable aims is a worthwhile objective; however, our elected officials are in office to represent the interests of the United States and our citizenry. One wonders with all the talk of a New World Order and the pressures for mounting concessions to world power if the old ghosts of the One World Government Establishment are still wandering the halls of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Sovereignty Properly Understood
A nation is sovereign over its own territory. International institutions are supposed to encourage and facilitate co-operation among nations to promote peace, prosperity and justice. Participation in such institutions does not impinge on a nation's sovereignty as long as it is freely engaged in. Some Americans believe the U.S. is a special case (exceptionalism) and should have the right to attack or intimidate any nation for whatever reason; any international agreement or institutional convention that hampers America's exercising its power is therefore an infringement on its "sovereignty". This view makes sense only under the assumption that the U.S. owns the world and its "sovereignty" is everywhere present - a preposterous notion.
Why the UN is used selectively
This is obvious but often worth repeating: To bind itself to the decisions of the UN General Assembly, or even the Security Council, a member nation risks accepting a vote against its most vital interests. Therefore, that nation bypasses the UN or ignores adverse UN actions. What structural revision could avoid such situations? For example, to add more permanent members to the Security Council would not eliminate the potential for adverse votes against a state's vital interests. On another subject, the UN Peacekeeping Force definitely needs drastic restructuring. Light infantry cannot begin to exert definitive force against the weaponry that is commonplace almost everywhere today. Strong combat arms in three dimensions, land, sea, and air, are essential.
US Power in the c21st
The key advantage President Obama holds is that his accession to Power was largely navigated in the new c21st landscape. He speaks the language of the now. Make no mistake the landscape has changed.The Mobile Phone is ubiquitious across the World, The Internet is expanding its reach every day, new Platforms like Facebook, Twitter [Moldova], Fllickr, You Tube are creating enormous scaleable opportunities for previously singular and fragmented voices. There is a very dynamic, ultimately disjunctive and grass roots near revolution going on. In many respects, national Boundaries are dissipating as Voices can now scale in the Internet. The President has been attendant to this and in many ways in order to be a successful US President he also needs to win the World.
We live in a very accelerated World. America might be the Hegemon but Power is very fluid. Things dont happen for a long time and then suddenly we are lurching and accelerating. Today that previously all conquering Institution the IMF [Mathathir has to be coommended for being the only Policy Maker who said ENOUGH]
is having to cut its cloth to suit a new age. BRIC will only participate via IMF Bonds. Thats hardly a long term commitment. They can sell those Bonds and be off in a flash.
A long time ago when I was 13 I was posed the following question.
Might is Right Discuss.
The way to achieve Full spectrum dominance is counterintuitive, It is to be off the radar, over the horizon and the best text book is surely Sun Tsu The Art Of War.
And remember Recovery Capital is Finite. That Uncle Ben and Uncle Tim are now watching their bluff being called in the Bond market [10 year yields exploded to the upside] and Copper has risen more than 50% at the time of the deepest recession since 1931. Signifiers too.
Aly-Khan satchu
http://www.rich.co.ke/rctools/wrapup.php
Ineffectivenesss of UN and Other International Organizations,
Wow1 The UN is ineffective at meeting its mandate; this is a surprising fact.Shockingly, organizations tend towards failure and become the dead-horse of our ubiquitous morality police, who strangely fail to meet their own obligations. There are either universal standards to be applied to bureaucratic institutions or there are not.
Alas, our very own bloated, blow-hard, protectors of honesty and decency could be held responsible for a great deal of the failure of recent UN missions, and perhaps even its bloating, as certainly people have been hired to contact our Representatives to remind them that the US is currently failing in its responsibility to meet it's $2.8 billion arrears to the organization.
Certainly you have received at least one of those calls; "Is there a family member from whom you could borrow $2.8 billion?" Frankly, we could do so by fiat, instead, we will offer a crumb or two. This largess will,, however, be contingent on no UN associated program offering any type of family planning. After all, the underappreeciated Malthus predicted that populations would tend to self-regulate. To have AIDS rates triple, say on the continent on which more people die every hour than they do in 24 here in the land of moral turpitude--Africa--would finally force those liberal intellectuals that good old Thomas was right after all.
Thank the good Lord, for leading our country to find such a cost way to sell it's indulgences.
As to why the UN is used selectively, it's pretty hard to swallow the idea that participating nations risk compromising their own vital interests. For example, how often has Israel been overwhelmingly sanctioned by the UN, for example,,for the expansion of settlements, and what price has it paid as a result? The answer is approaching infinite since 1942 and nothing whatsoever.
If you really want to talk morality, talk of the bad faith of the members of the Security Council, to whom the 750,000 Arabs expelled from their homes of THOUSANDS of years owe so much as a result of the numerous condemnations issued by the UN in 1942. Talk of members like the El Salvador, any number of rouge African countries, and even Cuba serving on the Human Rights Commission. For God's sake, even the arbiters of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands of Iraquis has even held a seat on this august and morally indespensible body.
A number of final points to conclude. Those who believe that the US is a country chosen by God to promulgate and enforce the very notion of what constitutes morality is delusional. Jesus certainly never visited here, and God is pretty clear that his paragons are those who are responsible for the 10 Jewish Commandments, which have flooded our government buildings. There are certain contingents of our "leadership", which justify their own moral superiority as a matter of opposing the UN to which they are statutorily committed to pay, at least the UN will not inappropriately solicit sex in international bathrooms or take life transforming interests in 15 year old pages of their own sex. In short, get off of your ahistorial, exceptionalist, high-horse and think for yourself about what the UN has achieved and what more it could do, if only it had the resources. Or, better yet, imagine that the US Congress were to fail to pay an outstanding debt to you of a couple of BILLION. Which is not to say that they may not offer some tease money, if only you practice the withdrawal method.
The World Order.
The world order reshapes itself, without the intervention of the world community. It is said, that the economic practices of The United States, has given rise to the current economic and political status of the People's Republic of China. The United States had used force of intent, to change the political viewpoint behind the Iron Curtain, and has succeeded to a great extent. But trust between Russia and the United States, has perhaps, not been developed to the levels desired, even after the political and economic reforms undertaken by The Russian State. China is a Communist Nation which has imbibed free market reforms in her economy, to a very great extent, but that has not made the United States and China trust each other greatly. Hence, in my opinion, one can be an observer of the changing political dynamics across the globe, but one cannot go against the tide, and as the saying goes, "have one's cake and eat it too".
Reply
What is disturbing about this essay is its focus on how taking on this leadership role will enhance U.S.
Custom Logo Design | animated logos | brochure logo design
Reply
Pursuing these goals by engaging other countries with mutual respect and integrity will bring far more sustainable stability than when the U.S. conducts itself as a hegemon.
Stationery Logo Design | Website logo design