The United States of the World????

The United States of the World?
by Jim Reed, for CBC News Online


"The coalition will assume responsibility for the territorial defense and security of Iraq after liberation."
-Zalmay Khalilzad, special assistant to U.S. President Bush


On a recent visit to Costa Rica, a law professor friend shared with me her view of the growing international role of the United States. She thinks that history is leading us inexorably toward a world government. That government, she believes, will be led by the United States (assisted by Britain and Russia), in a kind of "Pax Americana." Her contention finds some support in the unfolding of recent events.

The tragedy of September 11 shocked the world into awareness of an international terrorist conspiracy of apparently mammoth proportions. The United States in particular was gripped by the stark realization of its vulnerability to forces which, up to then, were thought incapable of striking at the U.S. homeland. Led by its president, George W. Bush, the U.S. immediately embarked on a worldwide hunt for those behind 9/11.

That hunt has had the side effect of reinforcing the U.S. position as the world's one and only superpower, the one nation capable of building what the first president Bush described as "a New World Order."

The so-called "war on terrorism" has sparked a search for allies on every continent. It has enmeshed President Bush and his administration in the politics of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and, of course, the Arab world. It has fostered intense diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State Colin Powell to persuade the world community to buy into the U.S. view of what's best for everyone.

No effort has been spared as American officials have courted the governments of the other members of the powerful United Nations Security Council, including the other permanent members, China, Russia, France and Britain. As of now, all five are edging slowly toward a common position. But it's the United States that holds the centre.

A year after the terrible events in New York, Bush lectured the United Nations General Assembly on its responsibilities. He warned that if the world body didn't carry out its duties with respect to Iraq, the U.S. would do the UN's work for it. My friend sees all this as part of a developing pattern.

The United States has, over the years acquired a reputation for getting its own way either through its dominant role in NATO, its influence on international financial institutions, or the exercise of its own raw military power.

The U.S. has been hailed as the saviour of democracy in Europe. It has been accused of wanting to be the so-called "policeman of the world." Its generals have ruled Japan, facilitated war crimes trials in Germany, supervised and financed the rebuilding of a war-torn Europe, unseated governments in Panama, Grenada and Haiti, led the bombing of Serbia into submission and are currently engaged in re-constituting the government of Afghanistan. (And that's the short list).

In the case of Iraq, if diplomatic pressure backed by the threat of force fails, the United States is prepared to act.

On October 10, a U.S. spokesman revealed well-advanced plans to install a military governor in Iraq, possibly in the person of General Tommy Franks, commander of United States forces in the Persian Gulf.

U.S. rule in Iraq is envisioned as a military occupation similar to the one led by General Douglas MacArthur in Japan; the military government would be in power for as long as it takes to build a new and America-friendly, democratic regime.

The plans also call for war-crimes trials of Iraqi leaders and military officials, and a supervised transition to an elected civilian government. Administration sources won't speculate on just how long American rule in Iraq could last.

The United States of The World? Pax Americana? Could be. My professor friend would say "definitely."