Numerous polls conducted by the Pew Research Center show the United States receiving low marks for international trust, even among allies, especially when the U.S. bypasses multilateral institutions (Bortin, 2007, p. A12; Stanley-Becker, I & Clement, S 2017).
Many of the complaints and much of the dissatisfaction with American policy and use of power are valid if it is acknowledged that the US government has at times violated the fundamental moral principles of universality and international law. Additionally, the U.S has refused, out of narrow national interest, to participate in agenda items widely viewed as positive for the global community.
In its first six months, the George W. Bush administration opted not to join the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, threatened to revoke the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and repealed the signature of the United States for the creation of the International Criminal Court. After September 11, the United States, in violation of some of the most important international treaties, kept prisoners for indefinite sentences in Guantanamo Bay without trial or due process, unilaterally invaded Iraq, brutally abused prisoners at Abou Ghraib prison in Iraq, operated secret CIA prisons in Europe, and rendered prisoners for torture, among other violations of international law. Yale Law Professor Oona A. Hathaway argues that these violations of international law encompass “a comprehensive vision of international law, one that treats international law not as a means of achieving American objectives but as an unnecessary and unjustified limitation on the exercise of American power” (Hathaway 2007, p. 35-36).
The 2005 Pentagon National Defense Strategy states, “Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism” (Hathaway 2007, p. 36). In this view, international law, rules, and regulations are seen as a threat to U.S. national interests. Although the Bush [43] administration reached new heights with its disregard for multilateralism among allies, gross violations of international norms and the principle of universality are certainly not isolated to the Republican Party. Democratic administrations have consistently violated fundamental norms of international relations. President Barack Obama expanded on many of George W. Bush’s most blatant violations of international law: drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; torture in Bagram Prison in Afghanistan; indefinite detention; targeted assassinations; and extraordinary rendition. (Aranas 2012, p. 3)
Historically, gross violations of international norms and the principle of universality are certainly not isolated to the United States. If any western European country or any other country possessed the military and economic power that the United States possesses today, would such a nation behave better? Would that nation behave the same or worse? In past eras, some western European countries possessed an equivalent amount, if not more, power than the United States wields today; and during their era of great power, they surpassed the abuses and brutality of contemporary United States foreign policy. Britain expanded its vast empire and covered the globe with colonialism, dividing much of Africa with France. Despite my affinity for the French language and culture (who wouldn’t love Paris?), France occupied and subjugated populations to colonial rule. In the early nineteenth century, Napoleon marched through all of Europe invading his neighbors in aggressive warfare. Nazi Germany attempted to conquer the world and spread an evil ideology of white supremacy and hate. Spain colonized Latin America and marched through the Americas, raping and killing the indigenous people, spreading disease, and subjugating the natives for economic gain and territorial expansion. Imperial Japan used shear brutality to spread its fascist ideology during the Second World War and carried out some of the most heinous crimes in the history of war against the Chinese population. Sweden, during its era of power in the 17th century (Lockhart 2004, p. 80), invaded its neighbors resulting in great economic gain for its nobility. History is replete with examples of strong states imposing their will on weaker nations and societies.
It may be a valid point that countries can learn from their own history and would never repeat the mistakes and crimes of their nation’s past, thus making them improved bearers of great power the next time it is garnered. However, this notion is mere speculation from a position of relative weakness. For example, while it is doubtful that France would ever repeat the brutality and dehumanization of colonialism and it is highly doubtful the Germans would repeat the evil of Nazism, it is possible that these countries would find new ways to abuse power within the context of the modern era of neoliberal globalization. It is difficult to accurately foresee the consequences of a nation’s acquisition of great power until after the fact. Of course, for the vilest of leaders and systems of government, one can see abuses before they fully actualize, such as with the rise of Nazism in 1930’s Germany. The Third Reich blinded much of the German population with nationalism and indoctrinated the people with both hate and fear, and only a brave few spoke out against the fast approaching monster of totalitarian brutality. Most of those people paid for their bravery and integrity with imprisonment or even their lives. However, it is unpredictable how governments exposing ideologies closer to the mainstream will behave once they obtain hegemonic power.
Colonialism was brought into existence by the greed of those that desired more than they had and wanted to open new markets and claim new land for their nation’s flag. The successful execution of colonial policy reaped increased economic benefits, which resulted in the acquisition of more power for the colonial state. When the state reached the status of an empire, the obstacle in usurping more wealth and land became the presence of other colonial states, which were competing for the same bounties. War ensued for the right to gain more power by defeating rival colonial states, reducing their power, and securing their possessions. Voltaire (2003, p. 38) writes, “Some nations, rather hordes, having thus by superior strength and skill brought into subjection others, begin afterwards to fight with one another for the division of the spoil.”
In my last post, I wrote, “Unrestrained power is always potentially very dangerous. Power facilitates greed and together they multiply exponentially; and the results of greed can produce more power, illegitimate as it may be.” A democratic system at the state level uses checks and balances to ensure that power is not abused. Ideally, democratic leaders should be held accountable for their actions by the courts, the legislative branch, the media, and the public.
At this point, it is necessary to repeat Burckhardt, “Power is of its nature evil, whoever wields it.” It is vital to safeguard the checks and restraints on power, in whatever form it appears , as it is always potentially pernicious.
Sources
Aranas, PFJ 2012, ‘Smokescreen: The US, NATO, and the Illegitimate Use of Force, Algora, New York.
Bortin, M 2007, ‘U.S. faces more distrust from world, poll shows’, New York Times, 28 Jun, p. A12.
Burckhardt, J 1979, ‘Reflections on history’, Liberty Classics, Indianapolis.
Hathaway, OA 2007, ‘Why we need international law: undoing the Bush administration’s damage’, The Nation, 19 Nov, pp. 35-37.
Lockhart, PD 2004, Sweden in the seventeenth century, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Stanley-Becker, I & Clement, S 2017, ‘Poll shows U.S. tumbling in world’s regard under Trump’, Washington Post, 26, Jun, viewed September 11, 2019, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/poll-shows-us-tumbling-in-worlds-regard-under-trump/2017/06/26/87a4f1bc-5857-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html>.
Voltaire 2003, ‘Policy’, in B Blaisell (ed.), The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings: Marx, Marat, Paine, Mao, Ghandi, and Others,Dover, Mineola, New York.