Global policeman

Last updated

Global policeman (or world police [1] ) is an informal term for a superpower which seeks or claims the right to intervene in other sovereign states. It has been used, firstly for the United Kingdom and, since 1945, for the United States, [2] [3] though it has been suggested that China has been seeking to take over the role in the 21st century. [4] [ better source needed ]

Contents

The two terms hegemon and global policeman are not identical in meaning. The former term defines capacity for dominant control anywhere on earth, whereas the latter may also include small or large areas outside control, along with monitoring and attempted enforcements, but does not define any level of effectiveness.

In international law

No formal recognition of this position exists. Theoretically, in international law, all nations are equal; " par in parem non habet imperium ", no authority between equals, is the principle applied, although, in reality some states are relatively more powerful than others. States are "immortal" and cannot be indicted. [5]

Comparison with state policing

Within states, law restrains and limits power; between states, the opposite is true. [6]

The Peelian principles of policing include: the duty to prevent crime, keep the peace and uphold the law, with the consent of the public, and with minimal use of force and restraint; to act impartially; and not to usurp the powers of the judiciary. [7] The latter standard requires a presumption of innocence. Candidates for police recruitment and promotion are appointed on merit, whereas a 'global policeman' is self-appointed faute de mieux.

Within states, a monopoly on violence is the norm; the police may carry weapons, but few others do so (the US is an exception, prompting Charles Lane to ask if it is 'really a state' [8] ) Internationally, a 'global policeman' is but one heavily armed state among two hundred others.

To confer the role of 'global policeman' on any self-interested, expansionary state implies a conflict of interest. States wage war with maximum force; engage in arms sales; form alliances and thus lack impartiality. [9]

History

The UK made efforts to end the slave trade through the West Africa Squadron. [10] In 1827, Britain, jointly with France and Russia, intervened on the side of Greek independence, destroying the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Navarino. In 1854, Britain, jointly with France, prevented Russia from destroying the Ottoman Empire. Russia had to withdraw from Moldavia and Wallachia, and Sevastopol was besieged in the Crimean War.

From 1914–1945 no one state was hegemonic, with Britain's power decreasing, but still very much a leading, world role, and with rising powers such as the United States, the Empire of Japan, and later Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In an era of multipolarity and diffused responsibility, fascist dictators arose and Europe sank into two world wars. According to Richard J Evans, "The authoritarian German challenge to democratic Britain then, is comparable to the authoritarian Chinese challenge to democratic America now.". [11]

Between the years 1945 and 1990, the world trade was dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States in what was known to be the Cold War.

The Truman Doctrine of 1947 promised assistance to anti-communist allies. "The right of neutrality was abolished... it was an era of aggressive peacetime policy which marked the beginning of America's role as global policeman." [12] Since the end of the Cold War "The enemy is terrorism not communism". [12] But after a disastrous intervention in Somalia in 1993, the US was reluctant to engage in humanitarian intervention in Bosnia [13] and Rwanda. [14]

The US-led invasion of Iraq, officially a policing mission to find weapons of mass destruction, was, according to some, an illegal cover for ulterior, unethical motives: the need to secure US regional bases, oil supplies, and the loyalty of key allies. [15] [16]

Since then, serious doubts have been raised about the validity of US overseas intervention and destabilization in Iraq, Libya and Syria. [17] [18] As the 21st century progresses, the morality of global policing itself is increasingly in question, with the inevitable loss of self-determination by nations in which intervention occurs. [19] Furthermore, with the advent of non-state threats to global security, prior legal justifications such as general "laws of war" are of questionable jurisdiction.

Modelski's long cycles theory

George Modelski defined global order as a 'management network centred on a lead unit and contenders for leadership, (pursuing) collective action at the global level'. [20] The system is allegedly cyclical. Each cycle is about 100 years' duration and a new hegemonic power appears each time:

  1. Portugal 1492–1580; in the Age of Discovery
  2. The Netherlands 1580–1688; beginning with the Eighty Years' War, 1579–1588
  3. United Kingdom (1) 1688–1792; beginning with the wars of Louis XVI
  4. United Kingdom (2) 1792–1914; beginning with the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars
  5. The United States 1914 to Present; beginning with World War I and two. [21]

Each cycle has four phases:

  1. Global war, which a) involves almost all global powers, b) is 'characteristically naval' [22] c) is caused by a system breakdown, d) is extremely lethal, e) results in a new global leader, capable of tackling global problems. [23] The war is a 'decision process' analogous to a national election. [24] The Thirty Years War, though lasting and destructive, was not a 'global war' [25]
  2. World Power, which lasts for 'about one generation'. [26] The new incumbent power 'prioritises global problems', mobilises a coalition, is decisive and innovative. [27] Pre-modern communities become dependent on the hegemonic power [28]
  3. Delegitimation. This phase can last for 20–27 years; the hegemonic power falters, as rival powers assert new nationalistic policies. [29]
  4. Deconcentration. The hegemony's problem-solving capacity declines. It yields to a multipolar order of warring rivals. Pre-modern communities become less dependent. [30] A challenger appears (successively, Spain, France, France, Germany, and the USSR) [21] and a new global war ensues.

The hegemonic nations tend to have: 'insular geography'; a stable, open society; a strong economy; strategic organisation, and strong political parties. By contrast, the 'challenger' nations have: closed systems; absolute rulers; domestic instability; and continental geographic locations. [31]

The long cycle system is repetitive, but also evolutionary. According to Modelski, it originated in about 1493 through a) the decline of Venetian naval power, b) Chinese abandonment of naval exploration, and c) discovery of sea routes to India and the Americas. [32] It has developed in parallel with the growth of the nation-state, political parties, command of the sea, and 'dependency of pre-modern communities'. [33] The system is flawed, lacking in coherence, solidarity, and capacity to address the North-South divide. [34] Modelski speculates that US deconcentration might be replaced by a power based in the 'Pacific rim' or by an explicit coalition of nations, as 'co-operation is urgently required in respect of nuclear weapons'. [35]

Modelski 'dismisses the idea that international relations are anarchic'. His research, influenced by Immanuel Wallerstein, was 'measured in decades... a major achievement' says Peter J. Taylor. [36]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Francis Fukuyama</span> American political scientist, political economist, and author

Francis Yoshihiro Fukuyama is an American political scientist, political economist, international relations scholar, and writer.

Pax Americana is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later in the world after the end of World War II in 1945, when the United States became the world's dominant economic, cultural, and military power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hegemony</span> Political, economic or military predominance of one state over other states

Hegemony is the political, economic, and military predominance of one state over other states, either regional or global.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American imperialism</span> Expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence

American imperialism is the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence beyond the boundaries of the United States of America. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; military protection; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; economic or diplomatic support; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roosevelt Corollary</span> Early 20th-century US foreign policy regarding Latin America

In the history of United States foreign policy, the Roosevelt Corollary was an addition to the Monroe Doctrine articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt in his State of the Union address in 1904, largely as a consequence of the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903. The corollary states that the United States could intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries if they committed flagrant wrongdoings that "loosened the ties of civilized society".

Power politics is a theory of power in international relations which contends that distributions of power and national interests, or changes to those distributions, are fundamental causes of war and of system stability.

<i>Hegemony or Survival</i> Book by Noam Chomsky

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance is a book about the United States and its foreign policy written by American political activist and linguist Noam Chomsky. It was first published in the United States in November 2003 by Metropolitan Books and then in the United Kingdom by Penguin Books. It was republished by Haymarket Books in January 2024.

Grand strategy or high strategy is a state's strategy of how means can be used to advance and achieve national interests in the long-term. Issues of grand strategy typically include the choice of military doctrine, force structure and alliances, as well as economic relations, diplomatic behavior, and methods to extract or mobilize resources.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I and the instability of the interwar period.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interventionism (politics)</span> Interference by one country in the affairs of another

Interventionism, in international politics, is the interference of a state or group of states into the domestic affairs of another state for the purposes of coercing that state to do something or refrain from doing something. The intervention can be conducted through military force or economic coercion. A different term, economic interventionism, refers to government interventions into markets at home.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social cycle theory</span> Type of social theories

Social cycle theories are among the earliest social theories in sociology. Unlike the theory of social evolutionism, which views the evolution of society and human history as progressing in some new, unique direction(s), sociological cycle theory argues that events and stages of society and history generally repeat themselves in cycles. Such a theory does not necessarily imply that there cannot be any social progress. In the early theory of Sima Qian and the more recent theories of long-term ("secular") political-demographic cycles as well as in the Varnic theory of P. R. Sarkar, an explicit accounting is made of social progress.

Global politics, also known as world politics, names both the discipline that studies the political and economic patterns of the world and the field that is being studied. At the centre of that field are the different processes of political globalization in relation to questions of social power.

Power transition theory is a theory about the nature of war, in relation to the power in international relations. The theory was first published in 1958 by its creator, A.F.K. Organski, in his textbook, World Politics (1958).

The Westphalian system, also known as Westphalian sovereignty, is a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory. The principle developed in Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, based on the state theory of Jean Bodin and the natural law teachings of Hugo Grotius. It underlies the modern international system of sovereign states and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which states that "nothing ... shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Modelski</span> American political scientist

George Modelski was Professor of political science in the University of Washington. Modelski was a professor there from 1967 to 1995.

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that supports international institutions, open markets, cooperative security, and liberal democracy. At its core, it holds that states should participate in international institutions that uphold rules-based norms, promote liberal democracy, and facilitate cooperation on transnational problems.

Stephen Zunes is an American international relations scholar specializing in the Middle Eastern politics, U.S. foreign policy, and strategic nonviolent action. He is known internationally as a leading critic of United States policy in the Middle East, particularly under the George W. Bush administration, and an analyst of nonviolent civil insurrections against autocratic regimes.

The foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration was of secondary concern to a president fixed on domestic policy. Clinton relied chiefly on his two experienced Secretaries of State Warren Christopher (1993–1997) and Madeleine Albright (1997–2001), as well as Vice President Al Gore. The Cold War had ended and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union had taken place under his predecessor President George H. W. Bush, whom Clinton criticized for being too preoccupied with foreign affairs. The United States was the only remaining superpower, with a military strength far overshadowing the rest of the world. There were tensions with countries such as Iran and North Korea, but no visible threats. Clinton's main priority was always domestic affairs, especially economics. Foreign-policy was chiefly of interest to him in terms of promoting American trade. His administration signed more than 300 bilateral trade agreements. His emergencies had to do with humanitarian crises which raised the issue of American or NATO or United Nations interventions to protect civilians, or armed humanitarian intervention, as the result of civil war, state collapse, or oppressive governments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States foreign policy in the Middle East</span> Activities and objectives of the United States in the Middle East

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has its roots in the early 19th-century Tripolitan War that occurred shortly after the 1776 establishment of the United States as an independent sovereign state, but became much more expansive in the aftermath of World War II. With the goal of preventing the Soviet Union from gaining influence in the region during the Cold War, American foreign policy saw the deliverance of extensive support in various forms to anti-communist and anti-Soviet regimes; among the top priorities for the U.S. with regards to this goal was its support for the State of Israel against its Soviet-backed neighbouring Arab countries during the peak of the Arab–Israeli conflict. The U.S. also came to replace the United Kingdom as the main security patron for Saudi Arabia as well as the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf in the 1960s and 1970s in order to ensure, among other goals, a stable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. As of 2023, the U.S. has diplomatic relations with every country in the Middle East except for Iran, with whom relations were severed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and Syria, with whom relations were suspended in 2012 following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political globalization</span> Growth of the worldwide political system

Political globalization is the growth of the worldwide political system, both in size and complexity. That system includes national governments, their governmental and intergovernmental organizations as well as government-independent elements of global civil society such as international non-governmental organizations and social movement organizations. One of the key aspects of political globalization is the declining importance of the nation-state and the rise of other actors on the political scene. The creation and existence of the United Nations is called one of the classic examples of political globalization.

References

  1. ↑ "Team America, World Police: The Need for Accountability". Harvard International Review . 3 September 2020. Retrieved 12 May 2022.
  2. ↑ Linda Colley, 'Britain and the US once ran the world. Now they're all at sea', The Guardian , 14 June 2017.
  3. ↑ Gideon Rachman, 'The world would miss the American policeman', Financial Times , 2 September 2013.
  4. ↑ Jonas Parello-Plesner and Parag Khanna, 'Stop fretting about Beijing as a global policeman', Financial Times , 28 December 2011.
  5. ↑ Martin Wight, Power Politics (Wight book), 1978, p 98- 109
  6. ↑ Martin Wight, Power Politics, 1978 , p 102
  7. ↑ Charles Reith, A new study of police history, Oliver and Boyd, 1956, appendix.
  8. ↑ 'In the US, who has the monopoly on force?', Washington Post, 13 July 2016
  9. ↑ Daniel L Davis, 'What the 'world police' analogy gets wrong,' The National Interest, 2 October 2016
  10. ↑ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk>pdf>britain-and-the-trade.pdf
  11. ↑ 'Before the first world war: what can 1914 tell us about 2014?' New Statesman , 23 January 2014
  12. 1 2 Wendy McElroy, 'How America became the World's Policeman', Independent Institute, 20 March 2015
  13. ↑ Connor Murphy, 'World Police Force?' psu.edu, 31 October 2013
  14. ↑ Scott Baldauf, 'Why the US didn't intervene in the Rwandan massacre', Christian Science Monitor 7 April 2009.
  15. ↑ Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Top judge: US and UK acted as vigilantes in Iraq invasion, Guardian, 17 November 2008
  16. ↑ David Usborne, 'WMD just an excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz', Independent, 29 May 2003
  17. ↑ Tariq Ali, 'America's selective vigilantism will make as many enemies as friends', The Guardian, 6 September 2011
  18. ↑ Nathan Gardels and Hans Blix, 'America is not the world's policeman – in Syria or Iraq', Christian Science Monitor, 27 August 2013
  19. ↑ Daniel L Davis, 'What the World Police Analogy gets wrong', The National Interest, 2 October 2016
  20. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p8
  21. 1 2 George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p40
  22. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p101
  23. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p43-6
  24. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p36-7
  25. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p45
  26. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p157
  27. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p14, 83, 93
  28. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, chapter 8
  29. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p40, p119
  30. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p119-20, p207
  31. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p90, p220-5, chapter 7
  32. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p41-3, p95
  33. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, chapters 6, 7, 8; p153
  34. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p201
  35. ↑ George Modelski, Long Cycles in World Politics, University of Washington, 1987, p41-3, p230-33
  36. ↑ Book reviews : Modelski, G. 1987: Long cycles in world politics. London: Macmillan. 244 pp. £29.50 cloth – Peter J. Taylor, 1989 (sagepub.com)

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.