Be afraid - be very afraid

To prove to myself that I didn't give up Plea Court for nothing I actually took advantage of one of the infamous LSE evening lectures/debates the other night: American power - global sheriff or international outlaw?

Unsurprisingly the crowd was almost entirely made up of Masters and PhD candidates - the undergrads were all drinking somewhere cool like the Three Tuns, I'm sure. The speakers were Professor William Wohlforth from good ol' Dartmouth College (I miss Vermont!) and Professor Paul Rogers from the University of Bradford. They didn't disappoint.

Prof. Bill went first, cheerfully noting that he hadn't been called to debate at the LSE when the States was saving asses in Kosovo and places like that - but now that Iraq had turned into such a debacle, here he was. ("Well, I am European," quipped the moderator who had invited him.)

Bill made his points simply. First, he declared, the US is not an international outlaw. (Booyah.) Of the treaties they sign, they stick to them. Sure, you can bring up Kyoto and other issues, but if the US didn't sign them and you wanted them to, that means you have political differences with US foreign policy - not that the US is an outlaw. As for ignoring the Geneva conventions regarding prisoners in the war on terror, well, does the Geneva convention really apply here or is it out of date? It was set up regarding prisoners with a state - not to tackle terrorists. There's a debate on international law there, he said, but you'd have to debate that, not whether or not the US is an outlaw. International law is too ambiguous on that point for anyone to pass any judgements.

Second, the US is indeed a sheriff. Well, sorta. And that's not because they are always acting alone - after all, he said, with the exception of Iraq the US has been acting in concert with members of the international community. He set aside background interventions such as working to make Japan feel more secure so they won't get all nervous and start racing China to create nuclear weapons, saying everyone's concerned about the front and centre interventions, military interventions. In fact they are merely part of a growing trend towards increasing international intervention aimed at preventing wars, genocides, and all that other bad stuff.

So this arrangement, he said, citing all those other conflicts that I can't remember right now, is imperfect - but a success. Ignoring Iraq. (As Iraq is quite a significant blunder I thought this was taking just a bit of leeway, but whatever.) Citing a report that's just been released whose name I can't remember now, he noted that violence in the world is actually well down - a fact that doesn't get a whole lot of press. This is because of the end of the Cold War (in which the US played a part), as well as the spread of democracy (in which the US also played a part) and, importantly, becaue of a decrease in civil wars and genocides. The most important reason for THAT decrease is because of - you guessed it - international interventions - often led or supported by the US. So Iraq, yeah, sure - but let's not detract from the big picture here. The US is a part time global sheriff.

(This is the part in the press conference when I'd be tempted to stop writing until the spining is over and wait for the speaker to get back to the issue at hand, but anyway. I guess he's got a point regarding the last ten years. But is that relevant anymore or has Iraq changed everything?)

Anyway - next Bill went on to look at the alternatives. Ok, maybe the world is concerned about a renegade super power, but what other options are there? Multi-polarity - a sharing of the sheriff duties between the great powers? No can do. First of all, no one can match the US. (God bless America.) Second of all, no one else is really trying. Everyone else's defence spending is either holding steady or decreasing, the US is the only one who's pouring money into defence. Why? Because the US isn't threatening their place in the world. They may be unhappy enough to grumble, not but unhappy enough to spend the money to do something about it.

Even if countries were spending the money to form a committee of great powers - countries such as China, Russia, Japan, India - would that system be more efficient or just? "I don't think so," Bill commented. (Is that American arrogant moral superiority, or does he have a point?)

Plus, Bill added, if everyone else starts building up their defences, we'll all end up scaring each other into our own arms races - and then everyone really will be worse off. Cold War all over again. (Yeah, we don't want that really.)

So, with all this evidence, why are we even asking the question, he wondered. It's been sparked by the Bush administration's brief flirtation with neo-conservatism: let's democratise the world. This phase, Bill declares, is over. The US electorate may be more conservative than Europe but it's not stupid - when a president makes a massive strategic blunder, they make him pay. Even the Republicans are running like crazy - no one wants to inherit this foreign policy legacy as the next president. The sheriff is learning. (Poor Dubya.)

So this entire debate is ironic. It's been brought about by Iraq, the very issue which is pushing the US away from that extreme position of 2003.

More on Paul's reply after I actually do some work ...