democracyarsenal.org: International Order Building

May 09, 2006

International Order Building
Posted by Suzanne Nossel

I posted back in October on the deliberations of the Princeton Project on National Security, an effort to devise a grand strategy to guide US foreign policy. Last week I moderated a discussion led by Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School on the Princeton Project findings at the Council on Foreign Relations. Dean Slaughter posted her observations on the discussion over at America Abroad. Here are a few of mine:

1. Order-building - A centerpiece of the project's thinking relates to "order-building," or the idea that US foreign policy should center on creating structures and norms that together frame an international order that's friendly to our aims and values. I like this: its something like what America's founders undertook - the task of building up a society based on particular values, but flexible enough to adapt to unpredictable growth and change. One discussion point at CFR is that the Chinese are today undertaking a kind of order-building on their own, based on mercantilist principles and the feeding of their immense need for energy and natural resources. So American order-building would hardly occur in a vacuum.

The trick, as Dean Slaughter discusses, is how to build this order: can we reform existing institutions? where existing but imperfect institutions (i.e. the UN) are entrenched, can new ones be created? I would argue that these days the Chinese may sometimes find the UN a more effective vehicle for their form of order-building than we do.

2. US Hegemony/Superpowerdom - Dean Slaughter argues that we don't need hegemony for its own stake, that prolonging America's sole superpowerdom ought not be a goal unto itself. I am not so sure. It seems to me that the most likely alternative right now to supplant American sole-superpowerdom is not a concert of like-minded Western countries striding atop an international order they've created (Slaughter's vision), but rather a potentially tense situation in which powers with competing interests vie forcefully over natural resources and disagree on how to handle threats. We may have no choice but to gradually cede to that, but I don't see how its preferable to the kind of preeminence we enjoyed during the 1990s.

Another point that Derek has made eloquently here but that can get lost in the progressive discussion is our Western allies are not all equally inclined (never mind capable) of solving the world's problems. Too often they lack the political will and vision to do so. To be sure we too often fall short, but there are many examples - Bosnia, Kosovo, the high-points of the Middle East peace process - where uniquely American leadership proves indispensable. One could argue that may change, but until it does do we really want to move over from the driver's seat.

3. Reification of Rules - Dean Slaughter writes: "[I]t is perfectly possible to find rules and obligations that are general in conception but very specific in application – targeting precisely 'states of concern' but in a systematic and collective way rather than an ad hoc and unilateral way. The key is getting the rules right, actually making sure that they are enforced, and providing for an out if they are not enforced." I doubt this. To go back to the analogy of order-building in early America, we never succeeded in writing rules that worked perfectly of their own accord. That's why we depend on multiple tiers of courts at the local, state and federal level adjudicating all manner of disputes in cases that are borderline based on the rules we've crafted.

At the international level the problem will always be even worse: the absence of a true legislative structure will result in vague and watered-down rules, and we'll never entrust an adjudicative body with final authority for resolving legal disputes. The much looser tools of diplomacy, alliances, backroom dealings, trust relationships, horse-trading and advocacy will always remain critical supplements to written rules for dealing with international problems. This makes the task of order-building much more amorphous than it would otherwise be, but the order we aspire to create needs to be flexible enough to allow for lots of maneuvering. Dean Slaughter acknowledges this when she writes: "Diplomacy is hard work, but when the U.S. is prepared to put in the work, listen to others, compromise, and forge a deal that genuinely benefits all sides, we can and will succeed." Getting this right is at least as important as getting the rules right.

4. Betting on America - I like this theme. Just as Bush's reelection led people around the world to attribute his policies to the American people, his plummeting poll numbers must have the opposite effect: a sense of relief that Americans are finally waking up to the serious mistakes that have been made and the need to correct them. As much damage as has been done to our global standing, I am convinced that if we play our cards right and rebuild our international legitimacy, we can and will lead again.

May 09, 2006 at 08:26 PM in Progressive Strategy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e200d834be87e269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference International Order Building:

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use

May 09, 2006

International Order Building
Posted by Suzanne Nossel

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Disclaimer

May 09, 2006

International Order Building Posted by Suzanne Nossel

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

Disclaimer

International Order Building
Posted by Suzanne Nossel