Stewart M. Patrick

The Internationalist

Patrick assesses the future of world order, state sovereignty, and multilateral cooperation.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Don’t Tread on Me: July 4th and U.S. Sovereignty

by Stewart M. Patrick
July 1, 2011

AVIATION ORDINANCE CHIEF SPRAYS 'JACK' FLAG ON BOARD THE USS CONSTELLATION IN THE GULF (John Schults/Courtesy Reuters)

Don’t Tread on Me: July 4th and U.S. Sovereignty

As the nation celebrates its 235th birthday, The Internationalist takes a break from beer and barbecuing to reflect on American sovereignty. This is a controversial topic, to say the least. John Bolton, former UN ambassador and potential GOP presidential candidate, warns of “The Coming War on Sovereignty,” (Commentary), with President Obama in the vanguard. The American Enterprise Institute, Bolton’s institutional home, host an impressive web site, “Global Governance Watch.” It’s dedicated to exposing the machinations of rogue international bodies, unaccountable NGOS, and progressive international lawyers—and documenting their alleged assaults on the U.S.  Constitution, democracy, and freedom of action.

Exploring the further reaches of cyberspace—where such anxieties become extreme, even paranoid—I’m often reminded of Brigadier General Jack Ripper. He’s the unhinged Air Force officer in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, who detects an “international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.”

As director of CFR’s own International Institutions and Global Governance program, I get my share of colorful emails, a few suggesting my work is “treasonous.” Some of these missives are informed by Scripture, at least superficially. My personal favorite: “Beelzebub tried Global Governance at the Tower of Babel and it didn’t work for him. It won’t work for you either.”

Given the overheated rhetoric, one might be tempted to dismiss all sovereignty concerns as the ravings of flat-earth cranks, John Birchers, or devotees of the Rapture. But the reality is more complex. The sovereignty of all nations is being challenged by a combination of forces, including deepening global integration, rising security interdependence, and developing international law. Multilateral cooperation does pose dilemmas for traditional concepts of U.S. sovereignty. It’s important to think clearly about the implications of these trends, about what U.S. prerogatives must be protected, and about what circumstances might warrant adjustments in U.S. psychology and policy.

The place to begin is by getting clarity on what’s at stake. The sovereignty debate actually encompasses several categories of concern:

For some, the basic problem is a loss of U.S. freedom of action. As the nation becomes enmeshed in multilateral institutions or treaties, it may well find its room for maneuver constrained, whether the issue is the use of force (governed by the UN Security Council) or trade policy (where the US has accepted a binding WTO dispute resolution mechanism). The U.S. rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as well as the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel land mines were efforts to retain flexibility in U.S. national security policy. The growing U.S. predilection for “minilateral” groupings, from the G20 to the Proliferation Security Initiative (Foreign Affairs), reflects a desire to maximize U.S. freedom of action, something harder to achieve in universal, treaty-based bodies.

For other critics, the principal worry is that the United States sacrifices domestic policy autonomy, as new international rules compel it to adjust its regulatory frameworks (by accepting new global financial standards, for instance) or to abide by intrusive global inspection regimes (as under the Chemical Weapons Convention). And yet even some conservatives recognize that deepening security interdependence, including the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), require adjustments. A case in point is Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security, who has sought to reframe national sovereignty for an age of catastrophic threats.

In principle, protecting U.S. national sovereignty should be easy. After all, the President and Congress can simply weigh the costs and benefits of proposed organizations, treaties, or arrangements, rejecting those that impose too great a cost. The US did just that in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and the Rome Statute of the ICC. So obviously, the United States retains the power to stand apart, rejecting the chains that Lilliputians would use to bind Gulliver. So what’s the big deal?

The problem, according to Bolton, Jeremy Rabkin, and fellow “new sovereigntists,” (Foreign Affairs) is that global legal trends and international organizations are challenging the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and eroding the foundations of American “exceptionalism”.  This argument rests on several claims.

To begin with, as John Fonte of the Hudson Institute contends, progressive activists and their NGOs allies are seeking to create new legal “norms” at the global level, in fields ranging from human rights to the environment. Unable to prevail domestically, left-wing political actors are essentially making an end-run around U.S. democracy, using UN conferences and “global civil society” to establish new international norms on issues ranging from small arms to the death penalty. 

Second, conservatives are agitated by what they consider misguided trends in “international law” (a phrase they surround with skeptical quotation marks), which they believe threaten the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. One bone of contention is whether foreign law should be cited by the U.S. Supreme Court (New York Times). The moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy has endorsed such an approach, in writing the majority opinion in the 2005 Roper vs. Simmons case (which struck down the death penalty for juveniles). Justice Antonin Scalia, taking the Federalist Society line, has offered a scathing riposte: “The basic premise of the court’s argument –that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world—ought to be rejected out of hand.”

Third, conservatives (as well as some liberals) are convinced that international organizations, not least the United Nations, are inherently undemocratic. Within such bastions of cronyism and corruption, unaccountable elites pursue their own agendas, often at odds with the interests and desires of the American people. Having fought British tyranny two centuries ago, the United States confronts a more insidious, faceless bureaucratic foe. For sovereignty-minded conservatives, the European Union is something of a bête noire, an unnatural supranational agglomeration in which once-proud nation-states have sacrificed their independence in a misguided desire to “pool sovereignty.” Their nightmare scenario is an eventual system of “global governance” based on an expanded EU model.

Finally, and most fundamentally, conservative critics fear that trends in global governance will increasingly erode the foundations of American exceptionalism—the conviction, embedded in U.S. political culture since the earliest days of the Republic, that the United States is a beacon among nations, a “city on a hill” (in John Winthrop’s phrase), a righteous country founded on inviolable political principles of eternal truth and guided by a special providence to act abroad in furtherance of those values. What such critics overlook, of course, is that the doctrine of American exceptionalism has been invoked not only by conservative icons like Ronald Reagan but indeed by nearly every U.S. president, including liberal internationalists like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Truman, who used it to justify  U.S. leadership in building the core multilateral institutions of world order (an argument I make in The Best Laid Plans) . (Foreign Affairs)

What drives conservatives batty about Barack Obama, among other things, is his apparent diffidence in asserting the uniqueness and superiority of the American experiment. As the President declared in his first trip to Europe, “Yes, I believe in American exceptionalism , just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believed in Greek exceptionalism.” For Bolton, such sentiments are enough to make Obama “the first post-American president”.

No doubt, the debate over American sovereignty will be one of the most contentious in U.S. foreign policy in the coming decades. Like the Fourth of July, it should generate a lot of fireworks. At the end of the day, I suspect that my boss at the Council, Richard Haass, has it right: seizing the “opportunity” of global integration will require accepting “a little less sovereignty.” But how much less—and under what terms—are matters we have only begun to debate as a nation.

Post a Comment 8 Comments

  • Posted by gary

    Great article. Personally I believe in democracy, and that the United Nations should undergo democratic reform. To some this looks like global governance. To me it’s just a better way of conducting foreign policy. It’s walking the democratic walk.

    http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

    gary

  • Posted by William B.B. Moody

    Stewart –

    Very well thought-out and expressed. Bravo!

    Bill

  • Posted by Externality

    American presidents have a history of using multinational entities (MNE) to bypass debate and constitutional strictures at home by forum-shopping between the G7, G8, G20, NATO, UN Security Council, etc., until they find an MNE that they can push their initiative through. It is then presented to the American people as a fait accompli that cannot be challenged without endangering both American and the MNE’s “credibility.” Congress is told that since the initiative was approved by an MNE, their approval is neither sought nor required.

    President Obama used this approach with the Libyan War. Since there was no popular enthusiasm for another war, he tried (and failed) to get G8 and NATO approval instead. The Obama administration then lobbied hard at the UN, pushing it through a divided UN Security Council. Security Council resolution in hand, they then convinced a small subset of NATO countries to join them in a war prosecuted in the name of NATO. (The majority of NATO refuses to attack Libya.) The Libyan War, has, in reality, less international support than Bush the Younger’s war against Iraq. And yet, the American people have been told by the administration and neoconservative legal theorists such as Eric Posner that their opinion, and that of Congress, is irrelevant because parts of the UNSC and NATO support the war.

    President Clinton did something similar with the former Yugoslavia, forum-shopping between the UNSC and NATO for approval to wage war without Congressional or popular approval. President Clinton assured the American people that a UN-backed no-fly zone over the former Yugoslavia would be a brief intervention using unarmed AWACS aircraft. (Operation Sky Monitor) What happened? Fighter planes were sent to shoot down violators, escalating US air strikes on Bosnian Serb positions, skirmishes with Serbia proper, and the 1999 Kosovo War. He avoided public debate by claiming that the UNSC resolutions obviated the need for an AUMF. When it became clear that neither the American people, the Congress, nor the UN would support the Kosovo war, President Clinton decided to wage the war through NATO. Preserving Western credibility and stopping human rights abuses, he claimed, took precedence over public, Congressional, and UN objections. After the Kosovo war, the US built the enormous and permanent Camp Bondsteel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel Twelve years later, Bosnia and Kosovo still require outside intervention to prevent ethnic and sectarian violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Representative_for_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

    A non-defense example is the way that the OECD’s Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was used by the US impose the so-called “know your customer” rules on Americans — rules that were strenously opposed by the American people when the Clinton administration tried to impose them via administrative rulemaking. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022799/bus_1D1banks.html The Clinton administration dropped the proposed rules, only to aggressively push (as did the Bush 43 administration) to make them a global standard the US would “have” to follow.

    Do the American people or the Congress have any control over the growing number of wars be prosecuted by “their” government in conjunction with the multinational body de jour? Or should we be “good Germans” and just accept the wars and ensuing human rights violations? I would also point out that the American people are still required to bear the costs of the wars and drone attacks being waged in the name of NATO or the UN.

    The effect of “multilateralism” is that an American president can bypass effectively all popular, legislative, judicial, and constitutional limitations by finding a multinational body that will approve their plans. Between the G7, G8, G20, NATO, UN Security Council, and other bodies, there will always a multinational body willing to “approve” a war or other action.

  • Posted by Externality

    The Libyan War, has, in reality, less international support than Bush the Younger’s war against Iraq.

    Perhaps I should have said participation.

    Thirty-nine other countries sent troops to Iraq in support of the 2003 Iraq war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#List_of_nations_in_the_coalition

    The current coalition for Libya includes 17 other countries, including countries that are only enforcing the naval blockade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed

  • Posted by Linda

    If you so certain in your thinking, then you shouldn’t feel the need to explain your position. Who are you trying to convince, us or yourself? It makes you uncomfortable that most of us shall not surrender our country and our Constitution, to ill bred, mentally unstable, ethically corrupt, barbarian, power mad idealogues. Too bad the Germans allowed Hilter to do that to them. Me thinks thou dost protest over much.

  • Posted by Bill P

    Great article! I would also like to suggest that anyone who is all gung-ho to defend U.S. sovereignty should also work just as hard to defend the territorial and political integrity of other nations. Up here in Canada, the U.S. refusal to acknowledge Canadian territoral waters such as those leading to Passamaquoddy Bay and through the Northwest Passage (once it thaws) has raised great concerns. Don’t want to be tread upon? Then don’t tread on us, either!

  • Posted by rank and pillage bonus

    you’re truly a excellent webmaster. The website loading speed is incredible. It kind of feels that you’re doing any distinctive trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a excellent activity in this matter!

  • Posted by Delcie Montoya

    Another great post, thanks for the write up! Have a great day and cant wait to see future posts

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks