I like being an American. I think Americans have always liked being Americans -- long before the end of WWII. I'm perfectly happy with 19th century America: mostly agrarian, no income tax, weak federal government, little or no world power.
Back in those days Europe was the place to go for nationalism and jingoism. They had war after war. Intrigue was thick. Quite frankly Americans were sick of it and didn't want anything to do with it.
After WWII, America was deeply concerned that the Europeans not draw them into another world war. At any cost, they wanted a stable Europe. What ended up happening was that they got exactly what they wanted: Europe has basically no capability for force projection and is peaceful even in the face of terrible atrocities. They simply don't have the ability to do a lot. The Americans were left holding the bag that Europe had in the 1800s -- projecting force, ensuring trade, meddling in foreign conflicts.
In general, I'm not buying into a pretext argument unless a person can demonstrate some kind of ulterior or true motive. Otherwise it's just arm-waving and innuendo. A legitimate reason is not a pretext. This was not Germany invading Poland. Having said that, there is a great difficulty is trying to pick a single reason for a legislative body to vote the use of force. There are probably dozens.
So yes, I'm totally happy with America sharing the world stage. Wouldn't it be much better to share it with Australia or France though? Aren't there dozens of better choices than a country stuck with a political system that is bound to collapse at some point?
Ha. You're kind of outing yourself as a white male with statements like that. I daresay blacks or women would be none too eager to join you in your idyllic 1800s paradise. There is something to be said for the simple life on the land, though for me I'll keep my A380s, internet and penicillin, thanks.
I like your point about "be careful what you wish for". America was certainly left holding the bag all right, and perhaps it took a long time to sink in the reasons that the Europeans had been so eager to hand it over. Truth is, no one country should be holding that bag, which is why a proper UN (not necessarily the UN we have today) is so desirable and inevitable. Hopefully the USA, realising that playing the role of global policeman is not the fun career it envisaged in its youth, will come to realise that a supranational pseudo-government is actually a very good idea. I predict this "realisation" will occur right about the time China overtakes the USA as the world's pre-eminent nation, in perhaps 20 or 30 years' time.
Well, like I said, the Iraq question is a very, very dead horse by now. The American opinion might have something to do with WMDs and UN Resolutions and what not, but the rest of the world has pretty much decided Iraq was pretty much just a 9/11 scapegoat and would never have been attacked absent the WTC incident. Argue if you want but there's not much point - I was explaining a sentiment, not trying to defend it. Anyway my own country was right there beside you, so not like I can point fingers. Folly on your part was also folly on my part. Ah well. Lessons learnt, hopefully.
Well, regarding the world stage - I don't think France or Australia are the peers you're looking for. France is 1/5th the size of the USA and Australia, 1/15th the size! Not really on the same level.
America's natural peers are the EU, India, China, ASEAN, CAFTA, CIS, and other blocs. America, too, will subsume into a bloc (NAFTA or successor), in time. I really see this process as inevitable. Hopefully we'll arrive fairly soon at a point where we have 10 or so major blocs sitting around a table, almost like elected officials representing their electorate, and they can duke out this kind of stuff with real authority and the power to back up their words. Not there yet, but it's a hope.
One more thing - don't bank on China's political system collapsing anytime soon. It won't. It's not even that bad, really. Communism is practically gone and if anything the country as everyday people experience it is now even more capitalist than America. They have even been experimenting with local elections, though not called by that name. Give them a few more years and I wouldn't have any problem living in China. It's a toss-up even today, honestly.
> Truth is, no one country should be holding that bag, which is why a proper UN (not necessarily the UN we have today) is so desirable and inevitable.
Not so fast. Desirable? In what universe would you want the Chinese, Americans, Russians, or even French to share authority over you?
Yes, police to deal with "bad people" is good/desirable, but mission-creep and the definition of "bad people" is important because you really don't want police dealing with you or good people. Since large organizations can't resist....
> Hopefully the USA, realising that playing the role of global policeman is not the fun career it envisaged in its youth, will come to realise that a supranational pseudo-government is actually a very good idea.
What experience with supranationals supports that theory?
Isolationism is the least bad choice. Occasionally, it doesn't work, and it sucks for countries with neighbors who have bad habits, but intervention has only two outcomes, and they're both bad. (There's nothing that breeds hatred better than actually helping someone who didn't want to be helped. And, if they actually want to be helped, there's really very little to do for them.)
And no, it doesn't matter that the intervention is coming from folks who belong to a supranational.
This is without even considering what the fact that the greatest evils come from folks who "meant well" means for a supranational.
" In what universe would you want the Chinese, Americans, Russians, or even French to share authority over you?"
They already do, of course. Heard of the WTO?
Anyway, I'm not proposing we submit all authority to the UN. One country One vote doesn't work, IMO. But One Trade Bloc One Vote is far more palatable.
The arguments you make against global police are generalisable to local police, too. Yes, corruption is a danger. With good governance this is manageable.
"What experience with supranationals supports that theory?"
The WTO, which has, as far as I can see, been a smashing success.
I don't really understand the rest of your points. "Isolationism" has not been practised by the USA for a century.
I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us. You might fear the USA's wings being clipped, but everyone elses' would be as well. And a global body with real power and moral mandate could do real good. For example, it could have stopped Darfur. And, being disinterested in China's exports, it could constrain their misadventures in Tibet and Africa too.
Think "WTO with morals". Does that really sound so bad?
The fact that something exists doesn't make it desirable.
> The arguments you make against global police are generalisable to local police, too.
Yup, but the scope of local police is limited, which limits the problems that bad ones can cause.
> Yes, corruption is a danger. With good governance this is manageable.
You don't get to assume unobtanium. Good governance decreases with organization size.
> The WTO, which has, as far as I can see, been a smashing success.
Tell that to the folks whose economies are crippled by agricultural subsidies by the EU and the US.
> "Isolationism" has not been practised by the USA for a century.
So? We don't have the supranationals that you favor, yet that's no obstacle to you proposing them, so how is the lack of isolationism today an obstacle?
> I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us.
How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?
The existence of a problem does not imply that there's a solution, let alone a solution of a given form.
> Think "WTO with morals". Does that really sound so bad?
Since I don't think that the WTO has especially good morals, it's unclear why I should think that it's good.
And, WTO pretty close to the best of the bunch. (The folks who allocate radio spectrum are arguably better.) The vast majority of supranationals are a disaster.
Yes, there's a chance that a new supranational would be good, but the odds are that it won't be.
"The fact that something exists doesn't make it desirable."
But you haven't pointed out any reason why it's not desirable. And in the case of, say, the WTO, there are measurable improvements in trade and international cooperation arguing in its favour.
"Yup, but the scope of local police is limited, which limits the problems that bad ones can cause."
I meant per-country local actually, so for the USA that would be the FBI. Are you against that? Plenty of examples of national/federal law enforcement, they seem to work OK. And needless to say there are international associations as well - Interpol, for one. Have you noticed any of them spinning headlong into tyrranny?
"You don't get to assume unobtanium. Good governance decreases with organization size."
Your argument here is expanding in scope, seemingly against all government. By the same principle you'd be against Federal government in the US - indeed, even State govt. Where do you stop? And why hold this view at all? Large governments have their flaws, but it's hard to see a viable alternative.
"Tell that to the folks whose economies are crippled by agricultural subsidies by the EU and the US."
Because there's no-one big enough to stand up to them? Greater international cooperation would hopefully act against this kind of thing. And I agree, it is an outrage.
Your arguments are confused. In one you're saying that supranational influence over countries is a bad thing. And then you come up with that point, in which it would obviously be a good thing if a supranational body had the power to force the US and the EU to abolish an unjust subsidy.
"So? We don't have the supranationals that you favor, yet that's no obstacle to you proposing them, so how is the lack of isolationism today an obstacle?"
I don't understand. It's not an obstacle. You were holding up isolationism as something good, and I was pointing out it has been on the decline for a century, with few bad effects and many good ones.
"How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?"
Look, I don't know what you're thinking of. My suggestion was that you'd have the major trade blocs sitting around a table, and empowered to authorise, or not, wars. Trade blocs are not "evil", they have interests, and those interests would hopefully advise against starting wars unless they were really well justified.
It would produce "good" in the same way that getting a bunch of evil people together to make the laws they all have to live by would produce "good". Even a society of murderers doesn't want to make murder legal, since they all have to live in it!
"I don't think that the WTO has especially good morals"
Morals was probably the wrong word. I meant, with a mandate beyond trade. Specifically, to authorise wars, interventions, etc, and with the power to back it up, unlike the UN. I guess I kind of think that's a moral thing but the word doesn't seem to fit all that well - can't think of an alternative for now.
"The vast majority of supranationals are a disaster."
What are you talking about? No they're not. You can question the IMF's methods but they're hardly a "disaster". Nor the world bank, ICC, EU, Mercosur, etc etc. And there's a lot of international law - law of the sea, the WTO rules, hell the Geneva convention.
Where's this "vast majority" which is a "disaster"?
The UN hasn't exactly gone as well as it could have, but even so most of its own "disaster" has been in opportunities lost, not misguided actions taken.
"Yes, there's a chance that a new supranational would be good, but the odds are that it won't be."
And we're just powerless to toss that coin, are we? Obviously we would try to make it good.
Your assertion that the "odds" are in favour of bad is not backed up by anything you've said. There are plenty of good supranationals, and they all seem to be working OK, or at least not actively bad. I don't understand the kneejerk antipathy to the idea.
> I meant per-country local actually, so for the USA that would be the FBI. Are you against that?
No, I'm not especially impressed with the FBI. Their crime "lab" turns out to have been a sham and that's supposedly one of their best features.
> Plenty of examples of national/federal law enforcement, they seem to work OK.
Oh really? How about some actual evidence instead of quotes cribbed from their funding requests.
> Large governments have their flaws, but it's hard to see a viable alternative.
Small govts of limited scope are pretty easy to see.
> Greater international cooperation would hopefully act against this kind of thing.
Hope isn't a plan. Greater international cooperation doesn't have the properties you assume. We have agricultural subsidies because the contries involved want them. We'll stop having them when they don't. International cooperation won't change that.
> And then you come up with that point, in which it would obviously be a good thing if a supranational body had the power to force the US and the EU to abolish an unjust subsidy.
You misunderstand. You're claiming that the WTO is good. I'm pointing out that it isn't good because it hasn't done the good thing that is obviously within its scope. Claiming that it could doesn't change that fact.
> You were holding up isolationism as something good, and I was pointing out it has been on the decline for a century, with few bad effects and many good ones.
Actually, you didn't point to any effects - you merely pointed that it was in decline.
>>How does getting a bunch of evil together in the same room produce good?
> My suggestion was that you'd have the major trade blocs sitting around a table, and empowered to authorise, or not, wars.
Trading blocks are composed of nations and we've already heard about nations, namely "I would be a lot more persuaded by your points about an evil supranational if we didn't see so much evil perpetrated by mere nations all around us."
> It would produce "good" in the same way that getting a bunch of evil people together to make the laws they all have to live by would produce "good". Even a society of murderers doesn't want to make murder legal, since they all have to live in it!
Except that it doesn't work that way. The murderers don't want folks murdering them, but they don't extend that courtesy to others. You need mostly good to pull off good govt and that's not an option at the supranational level.
> You can question the IMF's methods but they're hardly a "disaster".
Actually, I can question pretty much everything about the IMF as it has been a disaster in both methods and results.
> There are plenty of good supranationals, and they all seem to be working OK, or at least not actively bad.
The good ones have extremely limited scope and are in areas where standards have huge benefits to all parties and almost no downside to anyone. (That's why I mentioned the radio folks.) The WTO is on the edge of that and starting to fail. The organizations that you propose are well beyond that threshold.
> I don't understand the kneejerk antipathy to the idea.
That's okay - I do understand the fanboy reading of the press releases.
It's unclear that the WTO hasn't passed its peak of "good". There hasn't been much progress since 2006 and the recent G-20 meeting abandoned the term "free markets" as a goal.
I'm perfectly willing to blame the US for that change (even though it's not the only one pushing that direction) - my point is that the smashing success is likely a thing of the past.
> Hopefully we'll arrive fairly soon at a point where we have 10 or so major blocs sitting around a table, almost like elected officials representing their electorate, and they can duke out this kind of stuff with real authority and the power to back up their words.
Good ghod, I hope not. Why would I want folks representing some foreign power to have any authority over me?
If they've got a good idea, I can implement it without doing as they insist. If they've got a bad idea, why would I want to implement it?
"Why would I want folks representing some foreign power to have any authority over me?"
That's the reality of living in a multilateral world. For an up to the minute example, check out where a lot of AIG's bailout money is going: repaying its promises to the europeans. That cannot but be the result of intragovernmental "pay that or else". Who knows what the "or else" was but obviously coughing up $100B (and counting, rapidly) was preferable.
The EU is the largest economy on the planet. The USA does what the EU says, for anything to do with trade anyway. Wouldn't you prefer the process to be formalised, public, debated, representative?
Anyway, we were talking about war, so here's an example of looking on the bright side of things. Imagine there was such a supranational body, with the balls to say no to, well, anyone. Imagine GWB went to them, cap in hand, asking to invade Iraq. They told him to go jump, as they obviously would. You'd be up, what, 4,000 soldiers and half a trillion dollars in treasure?
A 10-member "war council" is not a bad idea at all.
Decentralized systems are much more stable in the long run than top-heavy centrally-planned ones. Only the looter welfare state crowd is lying to themselves about that.
Oh yes, decentralised systems like Europe in the 20th century? We've just had 60 years of (relative) peace precisely because there was a top-heavy single-superpower (well, two superpowers for a lot of it, but still).
There are so many counterexamples to your argument it's not funny. Are societies with single governments less stable than those with several parties all pulling for control? Do trade agreements make regions more or less stable? These are all self-evident.
Not sure what you mean by "tinfoil", I assume it's meant to be insulting, but I really don't see the controversy.
I wasn't referring to all of the other issues with 19th century America, just its role in world politics.
There are a few problems with your scenario.
First, experience has shown us time and again that governments must be ratified by active, regular, popular participation. There must be a mechanism in place to switch parties or plans. There's simply too many countries which do not fit that role currently. And a gang of dictatorships is just that: a gang. It's not a functioning government. You have to have representation. Elected leaders.
Second, one of the roles of government is to be the sole entity that enjoys the legitimate use of force. I can't see any scenario where governments are going to forgo their monopoly on force. In other words, as a treaty organization, which the UN is, it's wonderful. Countries decide how much they want to help and how to interpret treaties. As a world government, it would suck.
I'm sure we need to move towards better treaties, no doubt. But world government is a long way away due to foundational problems with both the U.N. and existing member states. You have to remember, the U.N. was supposed to keep us out of WWIII, not become a world government. It's done its job so far, but I'm not optimistic for the future. As Korea shown, countries will do what they please UN or no. At the end of the day, deciding to flout the UN or not is a PR decision.
I hope that one day we'll have a world-wide representative government. But, alas, hope is not a strategy! (wink)
Back in those days Europe was the place to go for nationalism and jingoism. They had war after war. Intrigue was thick. Quite frankly Americans were sick of it and didn't want anything to do with it.
After WWII, America was deeply concerned that the Europeans not draw them into another world war. At any cost, they wanted a stable Europe. What ended up happening was that they got exactly what they wanted: Europe has basically no capability for force projection and is peaceful even in the face of terrible atrocities. They simply don't have the ability to do a lot. The Americans were left holding the bag that Europe had in the 1800s -- projecting force, ensuring trade, meddling in foreign conflicts.
In general, I'm not buying into a pretext argument unless a person can demonstrate some kind of ulterior or true motive. Otherwise it's just arm-waving and innuendo. A legitimate reason is not a pretext. This was not Germany invading Poland. Having said that, there is a great difficulty is trying to pick a single reason for a legislative body to vote the use of force. There are probably dozens.
So yes, I'm totally happy with America sharing the world stage. Wouldn't it be much better to share it with Australia or France though? Aren't there dozens of better choices than a country stuck with a political system that is bound to collapse at some point?