U.S. hypocrisy in world arena

Commanding Moments
    By Michael Burstein

I knew that "the videotape" was going to be the hot news item on Monday morning, but I was still surprised to see every television station from the networks to CNN to the Family Channel broadcasting four hours of lurid details concerning the President's sex life. Even more surprising was how little coverage was devoted to Clinton's speech on terrorism at the United Nations that day. The lack of attention to a parade of foreign leaders who spoke Monday reflects a deeper movement away from international leadership and toward our own self-interest.

During the Cold War, the U.N. was the preeminent multilateral governance structure, with a primary mission of maintaining international security. Today, the U.N. is being eclipsed by groups such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), whose missions are to maintain economic security. With money moving across borders in the form of goods and capital, regulation is needed to reap the benefits from these transactions and to ensure that the world economy continues to function smoothly.

Even in areas such as the environment, international governance is needed to solve problems--global climate change, for example--whose scale extends beyond the responsibility of any single country. As nations move closer together, more cooperation is needed to mediate disputes and quell the pressures generated by differing cultures and values. But the U.S. has consistently resisted attempts to increase the power of intergovernmental organizations, to the detriment of worldwide governance.

This summer, the United States balked at the creation of a permanent international criminal court, citing as one of the potential dangers that innocent American soldiers could be hauled in front of a hostile tribunal by powers seeking to curb American influence. While this is certainly a legitimate concern, it is just as much of a danger for each of the other 127 nations present at the conference. 120 of them approved the court; the U.S. did not. American diplomats responded that the United States was a special case because of its lone superpower status.

The United States claims moral leadership and recognizes the theoretical necessity of international governance, but then refuses to pursue such governance if it limits the country's scope of unilateral action. This is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Many agree that the benefits of an international criminal court for upholding human rights and prosecuting war crimes, such as those witnessed just recently in the Balkans and Rwanda, far outweigh the risks to the United States. Moreover, the "moral leader" of the free world should share this view.

International governance is predicated on the art of give and take. When differing values collide, there will always be some who are unhappy with the outcome. The integrity of world organizations therefore depends critically on their capacity to hear all sides. In May, the WTO struck down a U.S. ban on importing shrimp that had been caught with nets that inadvertently killed endangered sea turtles--the group ruled that it was a violation of international trade rules. Environmentalists were livid. But consider the Thai shrimpers whose livelihoods were put in jeopardy for the sake of a sea turtle. Had the ruling been the other way, the Thais would have been up in arms.

Not only did the U.S. first try to unilaterally impose its morals on another country, but then, when rebuked, it simply branded the WTO as unresponsive to environmental concerns. Instead, environmental groups--and countries for that matter--with legitimate gripes should work to craft international institutions that are more transparent and responsive. Some loss of sovereignty may occur, but this is a necessary part of integration. And citizens should take advantage of the mechanisms for input as they grow, making their local views heard in the face of the threats posed by globalization.

As the world's leading democracy, richest economy, and most influential diplomatic power, the United States will always wield significant power in international affairs. To be a moral leader, though, requires helping shape international law that upholds our own principles of fairness and openness, and then adhering to it. That dynamism, more than the quality of our laws or our leaders, is at the heart of American morality.

Back to Opinion...