Int'l Law and Pax Americana

Remove all ads!

I was going to write this in the Saddam picts thread, but it began to seem way off topic. It began with a quote from Ragusa:

International law should be respected because it represents "300 years of consensus"? Given European history over the last 300 years, I don't know whether that's the best argument you can use, not only because 1) the last 300 years in Europe hosted the worst conflicts in world history, and 2) the idea of minimizing "balance of power" as a factor in diplomatic affairs is quite recent (post- WW2) in that 300 year history.

To follow on the second point, there's an issue to assigning responsiblilty to the resent, and unprecidented, outbreak of peace in Europe. For the Europeans, perhaps, responsibility could be attributed to the wisdom of (European) policy writers, in realizing the futility of "balance of power" arguments, choosing to demilitarize in favor of resolving conflict through consensus. And sure, there's consensus is all well and good. However, for the Americans, responsibility for peace in Europe also at least partially stems from the "Pax Americana" *still in effect* in Europe: after all, Germany is still technically occupied, and European policy wonks *do* factor in American military might whenever they (covertly) make their scenario plans and balance of power calculations.

So, to simplify a bit, the dilemma is: the Europeans largely believe that International Law, with only a minimal military, is enough to ensure peace around the world, and that US military might is in fact more destabilizing than not, while the Americans largely believe that the world is still dangerous enough to make a strong military necessary to keep the peace. Furthermore, they might hold the Europeans are naive to discount the necessary stabilizing role that the US military plays for Europe herself, in providing the context within which European international law can function.

Of course, Europe isn't alone in this: Canada is also for all intents and purposes demilitarized, and the US military still functions within the defense calculations of countries that frankly could afford to take on a much greater part of their defense spending, such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.

The US would love these countries to shoulder more of the burden of their defense, and would love to reduce the expense of bases in Europe, East Asia, and around the world. However, if the US thinks that these regions would not effectively defend themselves in the absense of US power (that is, they would underestimate the effort they would need to put into national defense), and that this would lead to global insecurity, then they might feel that they have no other choice but to continue defending parts of the world that might not appreciate the extent of this defense, for the sake of world stability.

Or to look at it another way: within the history of every Nation, one can find certain predictable disagreements between civilian policy makers and military strategists. For example, as was the case with Iraq, civilian policy makers can be more eager to use military force that the militaries would like. On the other hand however, civilian policy makers, as in Europe today, can also (in the military's view) minimize the importance of the military in achieving and maintaining stability, effectively taking the military for granted, and praising their own policy work above and beyond the presence of militaries for stability. These differences in opinion have played themselves out again and again in world history.

However, today, Europe, Canada, and East Asia have essentially subcontracted their military spending and defense to the US. Consequently, not only are US civilian policy makers more likely than Europeans to consider military solutions to conflicts, but also, the US actually has a "military perspective" (as opposed to a civilian perspective), while Europe et al do not. Let me say that again: in demilitarizing, Europe et al are operating almost solely from a civilian policy perspective, as they have subcontracted most of their military expertise to the US. It is natural that they minimized the importance of the military in statecraft.

So what do y'all make of this? Is US military might totally out of proportion? Or are the countries or regions that argue this (Europe, Canada, East Asia, etc), really just acting as free riders, taking shelter under the umbrella of the US military and then acting as though such an umbrella were unnecessary?

 

Let me stick up for balance of power. The Congress of Vienna established a very pragmatic balance of power that lasted for a century, the wars that did occur before WWI were brief and had more to do with German and Italian unification, than with conflicts over national interests.

Meanwhile, WWI was settled with a combination of vengence and the idealism of Wilson. That idealism led to WWII. The idealism school of the neo-cons does not lead to peace. It leads to endless wars.

 

How do you figure that Wilson's idealism was to blame. It was the punishment that the French and British forced on the Germans that led to thew next war.

 

The idealsim of Wilson is still in effect, with a pathetic group of losers called the U.N. They would take 8 months to decide whether to have Coke or Pepsi, let alone decide to help people getting slaughtered.

For all their many faults, American military presence in the world helps keep the peace. Were it not for the Americans, would North Korea be keeing quiet? Would the Arab world be more or less stable? You can guess MY answer to those questions.

Which isn't to say that the Americans aren't vicious, violent opportunists. They are. They're just the best bet in a bad world.

 

I am not at all convinced by American Altruism. Spreading their military around the globe not only affects their stated perception of responsibility for everyone's well-fare - but also for the chance to "stir" developements into directions favourable to them.
Its kinda hard to picture a nation that is prepared to sacrifice resources and peoples lifes for no other reason then foreign powers unwillingness to keep order on their block...

I would rather call it a convenient situation. Taking advantage of other nations' reluctance or inability to project military power, at the same time claiming the moral high ground of doing the dirty work no one wants to do. Win-win.

Of course the US call to share the burden of peace-keeping is by a nuance less strong when someone attempts to regain independency. What with the European Rapid Response Forces (or what they are called)? Not that popular with our Big Brother from what I have heard. Or Europe developing a satellite system of their own, Galileo?

No, I am not that convinced.

 

The Americans are, at this moment, the big kids on the block. Thus, they can do no right. If they don't goout and use their military might, they are isolationist snobs (they took a lot of fire for not joining the World Wars earlier). The rest of the world preaches to them about their responsibility to the world community.

When they do go and get involved, liberating people who have been invaded or gassed or having acid thrown in their faces for not wearing the right clothes, then they are busybodies with an Imperialistic agenda. The rest of the world preaches to them to go and take care of their own backyard.

So what in the name of the Almighty are they supposed to do?

 

If you are really interested, here is the agenda. Take a look at this document:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Of course, it's a bunch of generalizations that really are not specific in anyway, except for the rallying cry of "American leadership" whatever that really means. And let's not forget to pump lots of taxpayer $$$ into the military-industrial complex, for defense against our enemies (whoever they are). As such this document is really not very meaningful, but it is signed by some prominent neocons who are in our government - with an agenda.

 

What if the Americans are right? What if these nations are freeloading off Uncle Sam? The Backlash over Iraq is enough of an excuse to pull forces out of these places and maybe use that money elsewhere. Then when some trouble starts, these underdefended nations may come crawling back to King George for protection...

If the Americans are wrong, then they save a bunch of money that they could use to stimulate their economy...

 

As far as "freeloading" goes, well, war is part of human history and human nature. Like murder and theft, it's here to stay. A country without a military is like a city without a police force; just asking for trouble.

As far as Pax Americana, Dendri hits the nail on the head; Merka gets to influence things while at the same time claiming the moral high ground. Win-win situation.

 

Heh, have you read Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan I think it was Bion? He rants on through an entire book about this basic premise and the only exception between you and him is that you are more eloquent.

Now to my criticism.

First to Gnarff, war and military spending is the best way you can imagine to stimulate your economy, especially the American one whose dynomo the military industry is.

I actually the think the theory have some merit but not all. The US is seriously stuck in a short sighted realistic view of the world where the goal is to be biggest, best, most powerful and most importantly, safest in the neighbourhood. This is achieved by force and the ability to project force. The negative thing about this kind of policy is that in hte long run generates insecurity and seeing as it have been the policy of all nations up to WW2 that insecurity sooner or later takes the form of a big nasty war. Nations following a realpolitikal policy dont trust each other, distrust leads to fear, fear leads to hate and we all know that hate leads to suffering.

What the European states are trying to do, call it naive, is to replace the inherent distrust in the realistic law of the jungle world order with trust and cooperation. If enough are in on it, it will lead to security for all and a minimizing of fear. Sure, many European nations follow this policy partly because they are too small to be a realpolitical bully like the US or the former USSR but mostly because they have realised that realpolitik is untenable in the long run.

For me realpolitik gives us a lose-lose situation, it will lead to war and suffering and that your side would happen to win one or two bashes is of small consequence. If we try to work together we have a chance of avoiding war, we might not be as prepared when war does come and may not win but does that really matter much? Going with cooperation is at worst a win-lose situation and that is light years ahead of a lose-lose one.

 

Well, actually, the US-military is ridicously small compared to the Swiss military. That is if taken into account that the US is 40 times bigger. But if they had the same penchant for military might like the Swiss, they would have AN army now.

Bion: You forgot Nato, or better said, how the history of NATO until 1989 is viewed at and how different the opinions are on who contributed what among the different NATO members and how this views differ in a pond-wide gap. That has an impact on what one perceives as the necessary military size today.

But I tell you a little story about Swiss-idiosyncrasies. And you giggle a little a bit about them like I giggle about American idiosyncrasies.

There is one very old school of thought in Switzerland, that determines our relationship with the outside world. And most importantly the EU, as we are having next week another important vote about our EU relations.

This thought is best summarized in the Schiller quote:

There is an old tradition of thought and wide-spread particularly among the WWII generation, that the independence and success of Switzerland is based on its military supermacy. Besides being the hardest workers and smartest brainies. And that the Italians and the Germans never dared to attack us because they were afraid from the causalties we would inflict on them.

And interestingly, our famous Christoph Blocher (a descendant from asylum-seekers, like so many of us) held a speech concerning the next vote about our EU relations, reminding us all about our tradition of power and independence. We wouldn't need any of those international law-EU crap, because we were always the biggest kid on the block, maybe not in size, but in energy and resolution. Symbolically, he held the speech right at the Swiss-German border.

I can't help to find some similarites between Swiss views and American views on the world. Swiss are suspicious about agreeing to enter international treaties and are proud of having the biggest standing army in western Europe.

But for what do we need that army ? To protect us from Germany, France, Italy and Austria. They didn't show no signs of a planned invasion in the next years.

Likewise, what do the Americans need that army for ? What do the Europeans need an army for ? Who is a military threat of that size and not on Mars ?

The combined Western-European armies are 1.5 bigger than the US army. (I guess, could someone fact-check it ?) So, infact, the Europeans are the biggest kid on the block. There is only one country on this world that could remotely be seen as military threat to Europe .... the US. And even the US would have to go great steps to enlarge their army to really become a threat to Europe. (Ok, of course they are free to nuke world to kingdom come).

The question is, why do Europeans not get themselves an ability to project their military power on other continents. They can't right now, except for the French and the British in a small degree. The main bulk of the European armies are solely equipped and maintained for defence of home-territority.

And then, what would the Americans, i.e. Washington think, if the Europeans would build up a force to send to different continents? Wouldn't the Americans become suspicious. I'd like some Heritage-foundation assessment of the ramifications if the Europeans would start to do that. My bet is, that would seriously worsen the atlantic relationship.

And even worse, if the US and European differ in their vies so much, who could think they would actually use their military force to achieve the same goals in the same places. The Americans invade Iraq and the Europeans Saudi-Arabia. Oh, the quarrel while stepping on eachothers feet in the vain attempt to bring "democracy" at the barrel of a gun.

Would they ? Really ? And defend against WHOM?


Edit: No, I really wonder. All this talk about defence. If one talks about defence, there should be a mentioning about actual threat.

[ May 28, 2005, 14:01: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

@ I(y)ago
The combined armies of Western Europe are by some 500.000 men stronger than the US forces. Or so I seem to remember it.

I am also curious as to what powers Europe needs protection from. As far as I know no one is threatening us - possibly maybe because they cant. My guess is that even the US would meet ruin in case they wanted to tackle us on European soil.

However, I also think that the presence of US forces here isnt so much a protection from outside dangers, but a means to balance European powers out. Personally I was always in favour of US presence here, for it seemed to sooth certain fears of certain nations - the one I am a citizen of in particular. I mean just the location this Christoph Blocher of yours is giving his speech proves that much.
Everyone seems more relaxed and less suspicious of our every move with the US boys stationed all over the place. Makes for a far more laid back living. For all involved.

With that kind of Pax Americana I can live.

 

This is a very valid point. It's also worth remembering that up until 15 years ago there was an honest to God threat to Europe, in the form of the USSR. In large part, the continuing US presence in Europe is...habit. That, and it permits, erm, easier access to places such as Iraq and Afghanistan (and Kosovo and Somalia and...yeah)

Doesn't that make the argument that defense is necessary, though? "No one's going to attack us because they can't," implies that if they could, someone would. Again, I view a military as being every bit as necessary to any given nation as a police force is to any given city; yeah, you might be able to get away without having one for a while. Maybe even a long while. Eventually, though, not having an army will come back and bite you.

Put simply, do you trust all nations with the potential to reach your borders to not threaten you? Not just for now, but indefinitely. If not, you need a military.

Now, you don't need the ability to project power in the manner that America (and to a lesser degree France and England) can. That sort of military has two purposes: to defend allies abroad, and to threaten and attack enemies abroad.

 

If that's true, then Why does half the country disapprove of the war? And why hasn't the controling half of the country sent the boys into Syria after George W got re-elected?

The last 5 years have proven that some nations can't be trusted. The US will not likely trust anyone until they have Osama bin Laden's head on a pike on the White House lawn.

And What is the UN there for? Aren't they supposed to direct gang beatings on rogue states that act up? If the mere showing of unity from enought major nations doesn't keep rogue states in line, then the Trust that you speak of is null and void. When trust is not available, then you are stuck with Realpolitik...

But is a win-lose preferable if we are the losers? We put our trust in other nations, let our guard down, and then we get 9/11.

The Threat is terrorism. These people don't establish military bases, but operate in residential areas. You bomb the hell out of one of their bases, they've rigged the neighbourhood so that for every one of them that gets killed, more innocent citizens get killed. So they hold innocent people hostage while they plot to hurt other innocent people. Then they make damn sure that the liberal media gets these casualty figures (perhaps inflated with some of their own dead terrorists). This infuriates a portion of the Americans that want to protect their homeland, but want to maintain moral superiority...

So you're suggesting that the US are the bouncers in Europe? Shouldn't the EU be paying the US for this service?

What percentage of Americans believed that September 10, 2001? How many would change their answer 24 hours later?

Usually, all you need is to cover your own ass. You can always have spare munitions and use conscription to get extra forces for defence if your main forces are needed abroad. It's not about conquering the world, only making sure that you don't get conquered yourselves...

 

AMaster, I agree. Military forces are a necessity.
Perhaps I wasnt clear enough. I did not want to say Europe doesnt need its armies because there are no imminent invasions planned by, well, whoever.
Its the other way around: There is, in my opinion, no threat because we are able to defend what is ours. Seems almost like a moot point to me as we dont have enemies. But who knows... the situation could be a different one if we were defenseless. As it is eyeing the wealth of Europe is a waste of time for others.
The only nation with a chance of military success is a friend and ally. War between the US and the EU? I dont see that happening. Unthinkable for decades to come.

What I am suggesting is that there are positive aspects to US presence in Europe. What I am not suggesting is that the US is spending lots of dollars to make life easier for us. I already had my speech of what I think of American Altruism. A stable and peaceful (and perhaps not too independent) Europe is of interest to the US. This and what AMaster said answers the question whether the US should be funded for its service to the European cause:

I somewhat doubt the habit of US presence in Europe would still be that, a habit, if there wasnt a strategic advantage to it. This tradition will die the moment US bases in Europe loose their geopolitical importance.

Hmm. That was the work of terrorists. I am talking about threats posed by foreign military. Military options are hardly suitable for countering terrorism as terrorists dont have home nations. Use it still and lots of innocent people will die - resulting in support for the Bin Ladens of our world, who are hiding in their rat holes during the bombardements and raids on cities.

 

Terrorism is only a threat if you make it into a threat in your own mind. Unless the terrorism is perpetrated by a large segment of a population supposedly under your control and with the public support to enable it to revolt it is a mere nuisance. Arab terrorism is a threath to Israel because it is more part of a civil war than anything else.

Two buildings tumbling down and a few thousand deaths in the US is no threat to American society just as a bomb going off at a Spanish train station is a threat is a threat to Spanish society. These are no more a threat than all the people getting killed in car accidents are a threat to society or every murder is a threat to society. The only threat terrorism poses to a society is what can happen to the society in their attempt to battle terrorism. I read somewhere that you are ten times more likely to die by getting struck by lightning than by terrorism in the western world. Does that mean that we should then gear our entire societies towards combating lightning? No, do what you can to prevent terrorism and hunt down the perpetrators like the criminals they are and for gods sake dont give them supervillain status but the moment you perceive the terrorist as a real threat to the fundaments of a society far larger than that of the terrorists the terrorists have achieved their goal. Their goal is never to kill a few or people, that is a side effect. Their goal is the reaction seen by the US after 9/11, all they want is attention and a chance to fight what they see as evil incarnate. I dont know why we keep giving them it.

 

Er...so terrorists with WMDs wouldn't be a threat?

 

Not really no, what could they do? Worst case scenario: They level a major city. We have more. Of course terrorists are a threat but not a threat to our society and general wellbeing. They can take over and rule us, at worst they can be a nuisance. Tragic to the victims like all crimes but not overwhelming invaders at our doorstep. Terrorism are only as much as a threat as we let them be.

 

AMaster, while that is a possibility, there isn't really a point in constantly wetting your pants about it, and breathlessly threaten to blow up suspicious places, like Iran

IMO the US have one key problem. They don't speak with their enemies. And they rarely understand them. The Islamiacs are out to take away your American way of life? No more alcohole and a nuke on sin-city Las Vegas? Gimme a break, that's not Bin Laden - that's the Christian Right
Islamists are freaked out about the stuff the U.S. do or let do over their in their home countries, and the U.S. ought to ponder a moment if all the policies they had in the Middle East for the last thirty years have been all that great and smart.

In the Vietcong US president's believed to see China's hand and feared nothing less but a complete communist take-over of South-East Asia. The idea that that was simply another war of de-colionialisation didn't dawn on them.

I don't value the opinion that we are in WW-IV atm, as voiced with plenty of gravitas on National Review or the Weekly Standard and somewhere else on the right, as much less self-delusional. Insofar, and especially with the neo-cons in mind "who don't talk with evil but defeat it', I can't help considering U.S. politicos as about as doctinal and ideological as the communist aparachiks of the old U.S.S.R. Spassiva, towarischi!

Therefor, if they change a disastrous foreign policy they show weakness (probably with the underlying insight from genius rightwing middle-east 'experts' who say these unwashed pagans down there only understand the language of force anyway), and WE ARE NOT GOING TO APPEASE THE TERR'ISTS! Maybe only after a few martinis that starts to make sense.

The folks who point out that int'l law didn't prevent all these wars and horrors of the last century at least draw a premature conclusions when they blame it all on int'l law. I find it amazing that in todays complex world people still seek monocausal explanations.

The large number of wars in the 20th century is, for one, a result of the cold war proxy wars and then especially of decolonisation. As a result of the latter a significant number of international players came into existence. At 1900 the world iirc knew some 35 or so nations states. Today we have some close to 200 of them.
These players had intersts and the classical tools at hand a country has: Polticians, diplomats and then an army. More players with own interests, friction, war. It's that simple - and that leaves out these wars the U.S. or U.S.S.R. incited for ideological reaons, like in Angola, Vietnam, and so on.

International law came into exisetence as a result of the peace of Westfalia, and compared to the state before it brought to Europe a much increased stability by generating a 'code of conduct' to the nations: For instance the privileges of protocol for diplomats is a development from the etiquette of the times of the old monarchies in Europe.

That is, the basic underlying presumption of international law is equality and reciprocity.

With the invention of the oh-so-dreadeful rogue states (N.Korea being the sole exception) equality was found inconvenient, the U.S. didn't even find it neccessary to declare war on Iraq, they just attacked.

The U.S. with attacking Iraq have revoked reciprocity, too. Their status in the U.N. security council allows them not to fear any 'official' reprisals from the world community, like a U.N. security council resolution.

The U.S. got away with invading Iraq, and they find that int'l law slows them down on all the creepy ideas they have. Case in point is the IAEA. They do a stalwart job but the first time it came across was when they pointed out Saddam had no WMD - that was an unacceptable reality input - and as a result of that the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) has to go. The IAEA has a higher credibility than the U.S. on these issues, not at least because they are neutral and excellent experts. So it is much more difficult for the U.S. to enforce, say, sanctions on Iran because of alleged violations of the NPT, when the experts at the IAEA have the gall to dare writing accurate reports contradicting the U.S. administration.

The U.S. are more equal now, a thing you can easily buy in on in face of the awe inspiring U.S. arsenal. But even that has limits.

The hot revival of nukes in the U.S. is a fallout (pun intended) from Iraq, where the U.S. politicos, to their surprise and amazement, found out that their high tech military is ill prepared for peacekeeping once it has crushed the enemy army.
As the number of troops bound in Iraq puts such a strain on the U.S. forces, the option to use nukes is about the only one the U.S. have to be able to hold up their illusion of global reach - and displays how overstretched the U.S. forces actually are. Sure the U.S. gvt can incinerate every bloody corner on earth, but that's something else than actually influencing a country politically.

Military might alone does not generate political influence, and Madeleine Albright already got it wrong when she asked Colin Powell: "What are you saving this superb military for, Colin, if we can't use it?"

When you say int'l law doesn't solve all the worlds you're quite right, but if used sincerely it helps. It's no fit-all solution, but you don't blame a sledgehammer for being useless to work porcellain, don't you?

[ May 30, 2005, 05:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I agree. The threat is real. Ok, now what? Look for a workable solution; hopefully one that is diplomatic and political, rather than torching most of the planet in order to secure our own safety. We are always on the edge of uncertianty. How much uncertainty depends on how we respond to the percieved "threat" as much as it does the reality of the threat itself.

That is why good leadership is so meaningful. We must rely on the intelligence and cleverness of the people in charge to find a workable solution. It takes little brains, or cleverness, for that matter, to say: "Let's send the fleet," everytime something happens that we don't like. Right now America is in real trouble in this area. It takes a lot to screw up such a great nation, but...here we are. Ask yourself how we got here.