There are many differences between a "world order" of the US's doing and a world order of the UN's doing. There are a lot, but the most fundamental one is that rule by the UN is, by it's nature, more democratic becuase it involves input from the ruled. No matter HOW benevolent another power, would you want to live in a world that was effectively ruled by it if you weren't a citizen of it?
There is (was) a strong argument that the dominance of America as a unipole in the post-WWII order was due to the fact that they benevolently and presciently limited their own power by devolving it partly upon others. ie: America limited its own power (via the UN, various multilateral agreements, international laws, etc...and agreeing and acting as if if too was bound by them). In this way, a sort of "constitutional" arrangement was set up that gave the "ruled" a voice and even, in some cases, a veto over actions that affected them. See "After Victory" by John Ikenberry for a good enunciation of this argument.
I say this argument WAS effective and rang true but it does no longer.
I fault the Bush administration for a whole lot of things. (and I have street cred for doing so, but that we can get into later)...but one of the MOST damning things he has done is, in the course of two short years, overturned and effectively destroyed the entire post-war system of alliances and constitutional/law-like rule. By "going it alone" and excersing raw power (rather than simply convincing others of the rightness of a given action) he is returning us to a Hobbessian world of all against all.
And the conservatives NEVER get this. They rail against the UN and international law, spotuing off that "why should we be bound by some intangible thing like international law when it doesn't suit OUR interests?" Well, that's just about as stupid as I can imagine. International Laws, international agreements, coaltions built on convincing arguments rather than bribes or arm-twisting serve VERY important functions that, in the end, benefit EVERYONE. There is a very good reason the US has, up until now, abided by internaitonal laws AND, beleive it or not, been a strong proponent of many of them: becuase it helps us and everyone else. It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to things like that. By increasing transparency, reducing uncertainty, lowering transaction costs, and doing a whole host of other stuff, we and everyone else benefits.
The alternative, where we "go it alone" and say "the UN be damned" is a world of all against all. And in that world, inevitably, danger increases and, eventually, there will arise a balancing against the unipolar power.
WE live in a much more dangerous world today than we did three years ago. NOT becuase of Al Qaeda (hell, we've had terrorists for thousands of years) but becuase Bush is destroying the international system that the US built up since the second world war and which was perhaps the only example of it's kind in world history: we HAD a world in which there was a unipolar power but one which limited its own power to extend peace and prosperity across the world.
Now, we just care about ourselves.
I've gone on long enough. I try to make it a point to stay out of political discussions on game forums, but sometimes people just need to be educated. Sorry if I have offended, it was not my intention in any way. I am just passionate.
thanks,
Alarik
Quote:
Originally posted by Perrin:
Well you got me there... 
OK how about in modern times then? Although I thought that the Philippines had their own government.
Edit: There is also this:
quote:
Because your Government thinks it can establish a new world order.
|
Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none.