[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Again, our hypocrisy was noticed.International Law: A Growth IndustryThe problem of ideological blowback infects the very foundations of theinternational system that is in America s care.In the last chapter, forexample, we examined the problems of containing a China that is clev-erly using the openness of this international system to accumulate newtechnology and know-how and build its power.And as we saw in Chap-ters 1 and 2, the hegemonic role of the United States regularly places us insituations of friction not only with international institutions such as theUN but with international law, on which Wilson implicitly based theright to self-determination.America may have fought a humanitarianwar to save the Kosovars, but for years now the United States has been thelaggard government in approving many UN-sponsored human rightsconventions.In July 1999, fearing a compromise of its sovereignty, theClinton administration was virtually alone in opposing the InternationalCriminal Court (ICC) it originally championed and which was laterendorsed by 120 nations.The Bush administration went a step further,actually unsigning the United States from the treaty in the middle of the 176 At War with Ourselveswar on terror and, at one point, threatening to withdraw money for U.S.peacekeeping if the UN Security Council did not exempt U.S.troopsfrom ICC prosecution.Washington s desire to be permitted to act freelywas naturalÞöafter all, America, as the überpower, is the nation most oftencalled upon to do robust intervention that might leave its troops open towar-crimes claims.The International Criminal Court, intended to prose-cute genocidal acts, could conceivably (though it was highly unlikely)accuse American officials of being war criminals for dropping SpecialForces into another country s borders or bombingÞöin contravention ofthe UN charterÞöin order to kill people deemed dangerous to Americans.But to flout the ICC and international law so brazenly at a moment whenWashington was trying to identify itself with civilization blurred thedifference between Washington and the terrorists it was trying to isolate.It also set a worrisome precedent that opened the door to unilateral with-drawal from any number of treaties by any number of nations.The problem lies in the fact that the more powerful America hasbecome relative to the rest of the world, the more compelling has becomethe need to break the rules that we would like to apply to everyone else.Principles that sounded good when we were an emerging power don t workas well when we are in charge of global order and need to occasionallyknock some heads.Washington has begun insisting on, in effect, a doublestandard.At the same time, paradoxically, America needs to further thedevelopment of international law as a critical sinew of the internationalcommunityÞöespecially at a time when the international community, inturn, has become Washington s chief ally in the war on terror.And as international law evolves, America grows ever more uncom-fortable with the burden our Wilsonian progeny has placed on us.Inter-national pressures are increasing in favor of championing human rights, afavorite theme of both Democratic and Republican administrations.George W.Bush himself, echoing FDR s Four Freedoms, called these non-negotiable, and UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, who is for themost part admired by U.S.officials, has envisioned a future in which therights traditionally allotted to sovereign powers to manage their ownaffairs give way to more universal human-rights concerns. The sanctityand dignity of every human life, he said in accepting the Nobel Peace When Ideas Bite Back 177Prize in 2001, will require us to look beyond the framework of states. This, of course, was the thrust of both Wilson s and FDR s dream too, toachieve such a universal consensus on human values
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]